The Mormon doctrine of deity; the Roberts-Van der Donckt discussion, to which is added a discourse, Jesus Christ: the revelation of God

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http : //books . google . com/

L;-S 3'^F2 /^ ?' ^^

THE

MORMON DOCTRINE OF DEITY

THE ROBERTS -Yil DER DOHCKT DISCUSSIOI

TO WHICH IS ADDED A DISCOURSE

JESUS CHRIST: THE REVELATION OF GOD

BY

B. H. ROBERTS.

ALSO

A COLLECTION OF AUTHORITATIVE MORMON UTTERANCES

ON THE BEING AND NATURE OF GOD.

* ' Jt is the first principle of the Oospel to hiow for a certainty
the character of Qod; and to know that we may converse with
him as one man conwrses with anotJier,^^ — Joseph Smith.

*'Be who possesses a knowledge of God, and a knowledge ot
man, will not easily commit sin." — Talmud.

THE DESERET NEWS,

Salt I^ake City, Utah.

1903.

HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY
JUL 1 1914

CHARLES ELLiOTT PERKINS
MEMORIAL COLLECTION

COF^YRIQHX ie03

BY

B. H. ROBKRTS.

PREFACE.

T N nothiDg have men so far departed from revealed truth as
■'" in their conceptions of God. Therefore, when it pleased
the Lord in these last days to open again direct communication
with men, by a new dispensation of the gospel, it is not sur-
prising that the very first revelation given was one that re-
vealed himself and his Son Jesus Christ. A revelation which
not only made known the being of God, but the kind of a being
he is. The Prophet Joseph Smith, in his account of his first
great revelation, declares that he saw "two personages," re-
sembling each other in form and features, but whose brightness
and glory defied all description. One of these personages ad-
dressed the prophet and said, as he pointed to the other —

'^This is my beloved ton, hear him."

This was the revelation with which the work of God in the
last days began. The revelation of God, the Father; and of
God, the Son. They were seen to be two distinct personages.
They were like men inform; but infinitely more glorious in ap-
pearance, because perfect and divine. The Old Testament
truth was reaffirmed by this revelation — "God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him." Also the

17 PREFACE.

truth of the New Testament was reaffirmed — Jesus Christ was
shown to be the express image of the Father's person, hence
God, the Father, was in form like the Man, Christ Jesus, who
is also called "the Son of Man."

Again the Old Testament truth was revealed — "The Gods
said let us make man in our image, and in our likeness." That
is, more than one God was engaged in the work of creation.
Also the truth of the New Testament was again reaffirmed —
the Father and the Son are seen to be two separate and distinct
persons or individuals; hence the Godhead is plural, a council,
consisting of three distinct persons, as shown at the baptism
of Jesus, and throughout the conversations and discourses of
Jesus and his inspired apostles*

All this, coming so sharply in conflict with the ideas of an
apostate Christendom which had rejected the plain anthropo-
morphism of the Old and New Testament revelations of God;
also the scriptural doctrine of a plurality of Gods, for a false
philosophy-created God, immaterial and passionless — all this,
I say, could not fail to provoke controversy; for the revelation
given to Joseph Smith challenged the truth of the conception
of God held by the modern world — pagan, Jew, Mohammedan
and Christian alike.

It was not to be expected, then, that controversy could be
avoided, though it has been the policy of the Elders of the
Church to avoid debate as far as possible — debate which so
often means contention, a mere bandying of words — ^and have
trusted in the reaffirmation of the old truths of revelation,
accompanied by a humble testimony of their divinity, to spread

PREFACE. V

abroad a knowledge of the true God. Still, controversy, I re-
peat could not always be avoided. From the beginning, ''Mor-
mon" views of Deity have been assailed. They have been de-
nounced as **awfnl blasphemy;'' "soul destroying;" "the lowest
kind of materialism;" destructive of all truly religious senti-
ment,*" "the worst form of pantheism;" "the crudest possible
conception of God;" "absolutely incompatible with spirituality;"
"worse than the basest forms of idolatry." These are a few
of the phrases in which "Mormon" views of Deity have been de-
scribed. Defense against these attacks has been rendered
necessary from time to time; and whenever Elders of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have entered into
discussions on the subject of Deity, they have not failed to
make it clear that the scriptures sustained their doctrine,
although they may not always have been successful in stopping
the denunciations, sarcasms, and ridicule of their opponents.
This, however, is matter of small moment, since making clear
the truth is the object of discussion, not superior strength in
denunciation, bitterness in invective, keenness in sarcasm, or
subtilty in ridicule.

In the winter and summer of 1901, unusual interest was
awakened in "Mormon" views of Deity, in consequence of a
series of lectures on the subject delivered by a prominent sec-
tarian minister of Salt Lake City, and other discourses de-
livered before sectarian conventions of one kind or another
held during the summer months of the year named. Now it so
h appened that for that same year the General Board of the
Young Men's Improvement Associations of the Church of Jesus

VI PREFACE.

Christ of Latter-day Saints had planned a course of theological
study involving consideration of this same subject — the being
and nature of God; therefore, when the Mutual Improvement
Associations of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion met in conference
on the 18th of August of that year, and the writer was invited
to deliver an address at one of the sessions of the conference,
the time to him seemed opportune to set forth as clearly as
might be the doctrine of the Church of Christ as to God. Ac-
cordingly the discourse, which makes chapter one in this
book, was delivered. The discourse attracted some consider-
able attention, being .published both in the Deseret News
and Improvement Era: in the latter publication, in revised form.
Through a copy of this magazine the discourse fell into the
hands of the Reverend C. Van Der Donckt, of Pocatello, Idaho,
a priest of the Roman Catholic Church; and he wrote a Reply
to it, which by the courtesy of the editors of the Improvement
Era was published in that magazine, and now appears as chap-
ter two in this work.

It was very generally conceded that Rev. Van Der
Donckt's Reply was an able paper — a view in which I most
heartily concur; and it had the additional merit of being free
from offensive personalities or any indulgence in ridicule or
sarcasms of those principles which the gentleman sought to
controvert. Some were of opiaion that the Rev. gentleman's
argument could not be successfully answered. This was a view
in which I did not concur; for however unequal my skill in de-
bate might be as compared with that of the Rev. gentleman of
the Catholic Church, I had, and have now, supreme confidence

PREFACE. Vll

in the truth of the doctrines I believe and advocate; and I was
sure this advantage of having the truth would more than out-
weigh any want of skill in controversy on my part. In this confi-
dence the Rejoinder was written and published in the Improvement
Era, and now appears as chapter three in this work. How suc-
cessfully the Rejoinder meets the criticism upon our doctrines
by the Rev. gentleman who wrote the Reply, will of course ,
be determined by the individual reader.

The discourse with which this controversy begins appears
in chapter one as it did in the Era; unchanged except by the
enlargement of a quotation or two from Dr. Draper's works,
and Sir* Robert Ball's writings, and the addition of one or two
notes, with here and there a mere verbal change which in no
way affects the thought or argument of the discourse, as I
recognize the fact that any alteration which would change the
argument or introduce new matter in the discourse, would be
unfair to Mr. Van Der Donckt. The Rev. gentleman's Reply is,
of course, exactly as it appeared in the Improvement Era for
August and September, 1902. In the Rejoinder I have felt
more at liberty, and therefore have made some few changes in
the arrangement of paragraphs, and have here and there
strengthened the argument, though even in this division of the
discussion the changes in the Era copy are but slight.

In chapter four I publish another discourse — Jesus
Christ : the Revelation oj God, which I trust will emphasize and
render even more clear than my first discourse the belief of
the Church that Jesus Christ is the complete and perfect reve-
lation of God; that such as Jesus Christ is, God is.

VUl PREFACE.

In chapters five, six, seven and eight is a collection of
utterances from our sacred scriptures> and from some of the
prophets in the Church, on the doctrine of Deity, which I may
say without reserve will be found extremely valuable to the
student of this great subject; and these passages are so ar-
ranged as to make clear the fact that our doctrines on the
subject of Deity are today what they have been from the com-
mencement; and while there may have been an unfolding of
the doctrines, an enlargement of our understanding of them,
there is nothing in our doctrines on Deity today but what was
germinally present in that first great revelation received by the
Prophet Joseph Smith, in which God made himself known once
more to a prophet, who knew him, as Moses did, face to face
— as a man knows his friend.

B. H. Roberts.

Salt Lake City,

December, 1903.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

PAGB.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY 9

Form of God 9

The Oneness of God 26

The Plurality of Gods. ^ 29

The Future Possibilities of Man 32

CHAPTER n.

a* <<«i

REPLY TO ELDER ROBERTS MORMON" VIEW OP DEITY, BY REV. C.
VAN DER DONCKT, OP THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, POCATELLO,

IDAHO 44

Philosophical Proofs of God's Simplici ty or Spirituality 51

Man Can Never Become as God 54

The Unity of God 58

CHAPTER III.

A REJOINDER TO REV. C. VAN DER DONCKT^S REPLY 68

The Form of God 69

Of God Being Invisible 79

Of the Incarnation of the Son of God 91

Mr. Van Der Donckt's "Philosophical Proofs " of the Form and

Nature of God 98

Of Mr. Van Der Donckt's Premise , 103

Of the Doctrine of God's "Simplicity" Being of Pagan Rather

than of Christian Origin 114

X CONTENTS.

Of Jesus Christ Being Both Premise and Argument Against Mr.

Van Der Donckt's "Philosophical Argument" 119

More of "Mr. Van Der Donckt's "Philosophy" 123

Mr. Van Der Dohckt's Contrast Between Man and God 130

"Behold, the Man has Become as One of Us" 135

Of the Unity of God 137

Of the Father Alone Being God 147

Of the Oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Is it Physi-
cal Identity? 149

Of the Lord our God Being One God 156

Of our Revelations From God Being Local 159

Of God Being One in a Generic Sense 162

Of God, the Spirit of the Gods 166

Concluding Reflections 169

CHAPTER IV.

JESUS CHRIST: THE REVELATION OF GOD 171

Beliefs in India and Egypt 178

The Religion of China 174

Religion in Northern Europe 175

Gods of the Greeks and Romans 175

Epicureans 176

The Stoics 178

The Jews 179

God Revealed to the World in the Person of Jesus Christ 185

Evidence of Christ's Divinity from the Scriptures 187

Jesus Christ is called God in the Scriptures 188

Jesus Declares Himself to be God, the Son of God 189

Jesus Christ to be Worshiped, Hence God 191

Jesus Christ Equal with God the Father, Hence God — 192

The Character of God Revealed in the Life of Jesus Christ 194

The Humility of God 195

The Obedience of God 196

The Patience of God Under Temptation 198

The Compassion and Impartiality of God 200

God's Treatment of Sinners 202

CONTENTS. XI

The Severity of God 205

God Completely Revealed Through Christ 207

CHAPTER V.

A COLLECTION OP PASSAGES FROM "MORMON" WORKS, SETTING

FORTH "mormon'* VIEWS OF DEITY 209

The Father and the Son are Represented as Distinct Persons,
and also as being in the Form of Men, in the First Vision of

the Prophet of the New Dispensation 209

The Doctrine of the Godhead According to the Book of Mormon. 213
The Doctrines of the Godhead and Man According to the Book of

Abraham 217

The Godhead According to the Doctrine and Covenants 221

The "Mormon" Doctrine of Deity as Set Forth in the Discourses
of the Prophet Joseph Smith and Early Church Publications. 226

The King Follett Sermon, April 7, 1844 226

The Discourse of June 16, 1844 229

Use of the word Elohim 234

Omnipresence of God 238

CHAPTER VI.

THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH'S VIEWS IN RELATION TO MAN AND

THE PRIESTHOOD 243

Adam and His Relation to the Inhabitants of the Earth 249

The Living God 251

Materiality 254

CHAPTER VII.

DISCOURSES ON DEITY AND MAN 259

I. President Brigham Young 259

II. Elder Orson Pratt 266

CHAPTER VIII.

"I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVES."

President Joseph F. Smith on the "Mormon" Doctrine of Deity.... 285

^11 CONTENTS.

Gift of the Ho^y Ghost 287

JfBus the FitJjer of this World 28»

Glorious Possihilities of Man 290

Man to Become Like Christ 292

Persons^l Testimony 294

THE ''MORMON'' DOCTRINE OF
DEITY.*

CHAPTER I.
I.

FORM OP GOD.

MY brethren and sisters, there are two things which con-
join to make this conference of the Young Men's and
Young Women's Improvement Associations of Salt Lake Stake
of Zion an interesting occasion. One is the approaching work-
ing season of the Young Men's Associations. They will this
winter take up a course of study in "Mormon" doctrine — the
first principles of the Gospel, or at least, some of those princi-
ples; and a large division of the Manual which has been pre-
pared for their use will deal with the subject of the Godhead .
For this reason I thought the time opportune to call attention
to some of the doctrinal features pertaining to this subject.
The Prophet Joseph Smith made this important statement: **It
is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the
character of God;" then he added something which to some ears

* A lecture originally delivered before the conference of the
Mutual Improvement Associations of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion, Aug-
ust 18, 1901.

10 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

is a little oflfensive — "and to know that we may converse with
him, as one man converses with another.^ On the same occa-
sion, he also said: "God himself was once as we are now, and is
an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.*" Since,
then, to know the character of God is one of the first principles
of theGospel, the subject of the Godhead is given a prominent
place in the Manual for our Young Men's Associations during the
coming season. This is one thing which makes this conference
an interesting occasion.

Another thing which contributes to the interest of this
conference, and also to this subject of the Godhead, is the
attention which of late has been given to what is called the
"Mormon view of God" by sectarian ministers among us. The
interest found expression in a course of lectures during the
past few months by one of the prominent ministers of Salt Lake
City,t and also in a discourse delivered by another minister be-
fore the Teachers' association of the Utah Presbytery,^ in
which certain strictures were offered concerning our doctrine
of God. It will perhaps be well to read the report of what in
substance was said on that occasion by the reverend gentleman
who thought proper to take up this subject before that associa-
tion. I read from the synopsis of his discourse published in one
of the morning papers:

At this point Dr. Paden made his address, first taking up some
of the standard writings on "Mormon" doctrine and reading from
them the ideas of God as incorporated in the ""Mormon" faith. He
read from the Catechism in relation to the Godhead, wherein it is
stated that there are not only more Gods than one, bat that God is a

•History of Joseph Smith: Millennial Star, Vol. xxiii, p. 246.
tThis was Rev. Alfred H. Henry, Pastor First M. E. Church.
i This was Dr. Paden of the Presbyterian church, August 16,
1901.

The '^mormon*' DOCTRiKte op deity. il

being of parts, with a body like that of a man. He then read from
the Doctrine and Covenants, where it is stated that the words of the
priesthood are the words of God. After calling attention to the
material view of God as set forth in these teachings, the speaker
said that he thought he could see a tendency towards a more spiritual
idea of God among the younger and more enlightened members of the
dominant church, and noticed this in the writings of Dr. Talmage
especially. Referring to the Adam- God idea, the speaker said that
he had not investigated it much, but thought that the '*Mormon''
Church was ashamed of such an idea. He placed special stress on the
idea that when men attempted to give God a human form they fash-
ioned him after their own weaknesses and frailties. A carnal man,
he said, had a carnal God, and a spiritual man a spiritual God. The
teaching of a material God, said he, and of a plurality of Gods, I
think is heathenish. The material conception of God is the crudest
possible conception.

I take it that we may classify under three heads the
complaints here made against us with reference to the doctrine
of Deity.

First, we believe that God is a being with a body in form
like man's; that he possesses body, parts and passions; that in
a word, God is an exalted, perfected man.

Second, we believe in a plurality of Gods.

Third, we believe that somewhere and some time in the
ages to come, through development, through enlargement,
through purification until perfection is attained, man at last,
may become like God — a God.

I think these three complaints may be said to cover the
whole ground of what our reverend critics regard as our error
in doctrine on the subject of Deity.

The task before me, on this occasion, is to take this sub-
ject and present to you what in reality the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter day Saints teaches with reference to the God-
head.

12 ^ THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

Very natui'ally, one stands in awe of the subject, so large it
is, and so sacred it is. One can only approach it with feelings
of reverential awe, and with a deep sense of his own inability to
grasp the truth and make it plain to the understandings of men.
In the presence of such a task, one feels like invoking the pow-
ers divine to aid him in his undertaking; and paraphrasing
Milton a little, one could well cry aloud, what in me is dark,
illumine; what low, raise and support, that to the height of
this great argument I may justify to men the faith we hold of
God.

Here let me say that we are dependent upon that which
God hasbeen pleased to reveal concerning himself for what we
know of him. Today, as in olden- times, man cannot by searching
find out God.'" While it is true that in a certain sense the
heavens declare his glory, and the firmament showeth his handi-
work, and proclaim to some extent his eternal power and God-
head, yet nothing absolutely definite with respect of God may
be learned from those works of nature. I will narrow the field
itill more, and say that such conceptions of God as we entertain
must be in harmony with the doctrines of the New Testament
on this subject; for accepting as we do, the New Testament as
the word of God — at least, as part of it— any modern
revelation which we may claim to possess must be in harmony
with that revelation. Consequently, on this occasion, all we
have to do is to consider the New Testament doctrine with
reference to the Godhead. This, I believe, will simplify our
task.

Start we then with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is to be observed in passing that Jesus himself came with no
abstract definition of God. Nowhere in his teachings can you
find any argument about the existence of God. That he takes
for granted; assumes as true; and from that basis proceeds as a

• Job ii: 7.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 18

teacher of men. Nay more; he claims God as his Father. It is
not necessary to quote texts in proof of this statement; the
New Testament is replete with declarations of that character.
What may be of more importance for us at the present moment
is to call attention to the fact that God himself also acknowledged
the relationship which Jesus claimed. Most emphatically did
he do so on the memorable occasion of the baptism of
Jesus in the river Jordan. You remember how the scriptures,
according to Matthew, tell us that as Jesus came up out of the
water from his baptism, the heavens were opened, and the
Spirit of God descended like a dove upon him; and at the same
moment, out of the stillness came the voice of God, saying,
"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." On
another occasion the Father acknowledges the relationship —
at the transfiguration of Jesus in the mount, in the presence
of three of his apostles, Peter and James and John, and the
angels Moses and Elias. The company was overshadowed by a
glorious light, and the voice of God was heard to say of Jesus,
"This is my beloved Son; hear him." Of this the apostles in
subsequent years testified, and we have on record their testi-
mony. So that the existence of God the Father, and the
relationship of Jesus to him, is most clearly shown in these
scriptures. But Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God,
and in this connection there is clearly claimed for him divinity,
that is to say, Godship. Let me read to you a direct passage
upon that subject; it is to be found in the gospel according to
St. John, and reads as follows:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. ♦ ♦ ♦ ^jj^j ^jj^ ^q^jJ ^^s
made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the tnly begotten of the Father) full of grace and
truth.*

♦ John 1.

14 THE "mormon*' doctrine OP DEITY.

The identity between Jesus of Nazareth — "the Word made
flesh"— and the "Word" that was "with God from the begin-
ning," and that "was God," is so clear that it cannot possibly
be doubted. So the Son is God, as well as the Father is God.
Other evidences go to establish the fact that Jesus had the
Godlike power of creation. In the very passage I have just
read, it is said:

All things were made by him [that is, by the Word, who is Jesus];
and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was
life; and the life was the light of men.*

One other scripture of like import, but perhaps even more
emphatic than the foregoing, is that saying of Paul's in the
epistle to the Hebrews:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by
whom also he made the worlds, t

Not only one world, but many "worlds," for the word is used
in the plural So that we find that the Son of God was God the
Father's agent in the work of creation, and that under the
Father's direction he created many worlds. There can be no
question then as to the divinity, the Godship, of Jesus of Naza-
reth, since he is not only God the Son, but God the Creator also
— of course under the direction of the Father.

Again, the Holy Ghost is spoken of in the scriptures as
God. I t»"iink, perchance, the clearest verification of that state-
ment is to be found in connection with the circumstance of
Ananias and his wife attempting to deceive the apostles with
reference to the price for which they had sold a certain parcel
of land they owned, which price they proposed putting into the

♦ yerses 3, 4.
t Heb. 1: 1-3.

THE **MORMOir DOCTRINE OP DEITY. 15

common fund of the Church; but selfishness asserted itself, and
they concluded to lie as to the price of the land, and only con-
secrate a part to the common fund It was an attempt to get
credit for a full consecration of what they possessed, on what
was a partial dedication of their goods. They proposed to bVe
a lie, and to tell one if necessary to cover the lie they proposed
to live. When Ananias stood in the presence of the apostles,
Peter put this very pointed question to him: "Why hath Satan
filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghostr * * * 'Thou
hast not lied unto men, but unto God.*** To lie to the Holy
Ghost is to lie to God, because the Holy Ghost is Gk)d. And
frequently in the scriptures the Holy Spirit is spoken of in this
way.

These three, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is true,
are spoken of in the most definite manner as being God; but the
distinction of one from the other is also clearly marked in the
scriptures. Take that circumstance to which I have already
alluded — the baptism of Jesus. There we may see the three
distinct personalities most clearly. The Son coming up out of
the water from his baptism; the heavens opening and the Holy
Spirit descending upon him; while out of heaven the voice of
God is heard saying, ''This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased." Here three Gods are distinctly apparent. They are
seen to be distinct from each other. They appear simultane-
ously, not as one, but as three, each one doing a different thing,
so that however completely they may be one in spirit, in pur-
pose, in will, they are clearly distinct as persons — as individuals.

In several instances in the scriptures these three person-
ages are accorded equal dignitv in the Godhead. An example
is found in the commission which Jesus gave to his disciples
after his resurrection, when be sent them out into the world to

♦ Acts 5.

16 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

preach the gospel to all nations. He stood in the presence of
tha eleven, and said:

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye,
therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.*

Each of the three is here given equal dignity in the God-
head. Again, in the apostolic benediction:

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the
communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all.

In one particular, at least, Jesus came very nearly exalting
the Holy Ghost to a seeming superiority over the other person-
ages in the Godhead; for he said:

All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but
the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto
men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it
shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh agaist the Holy
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in
the world to come.f

I take it, however, that this seeming superior dignity
accorded to the Holy Ghost by the Son of God, is owing to the
nature of the third personage in the Trinity, and the kind of
testimony he can impart unto the soul of man because of his
being a personage of spirit — a testimony that is better than
the seeing of the eye, more sure than the hearing of the
ear, because it is spirit testifying to spirit — soul communing
with soul — it is the soul of God imparting to the soul of man;
and if men, after receiving that Witness from God shall blas-
pheme against him, farewell hope of forgiveness for such a sin,
in this world or in the world to come!

*lMatt. 28: 18-20.
t Matt. 12: 31, 32.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 17

These three personages then are of equal dignity in the
Godhead, according to the teachings of the New Testament,
which teachings, I pray you keep in mind, we most heartily
accept.

This simple Christian teaching respecting the Godhead,
gave birth to what in ecclesiastical history is called "The
Apostles' Creed." A vague tradition hath it that before the
Apostles dispersed to go into the world to preach the gospel
they formulated a creed with respect of the Church's belief in
God. Whether that tradition be true or not, I do not know,
and for matter of that, it makes little difference. Suffice it to
say that the so-called "Apostles' Creed," for two centuries
expressed the faith of the early Christians upon the question
of God. It stands as follows:

I believe in God, the Father, Almighty ; and in Jesus Christ, his
only Begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary by
the Holy Ghost, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, arose
from the dead on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and sits at
the right hand of the Father, whence he will come, to judge the living
and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost.

This was the first formulated Christian creed upon the subject
of the Godhead, so far as known; and the ancient saints were con-
tent to allow this expression of their belief to excite their rever-
ence without arousing their curiosity as to the nature of God.
Happy, perhaps,for this world, certainly it would have contributed
to the honor of ecclesiastical history, had this simple formula of
the New Testament doctrine respecting God been allowed to
stand sufficient until it should please God to raise the curtain
yet a little more and give definite revelation with respect of
himself and especially of his own nature. But this did not
satisfy the so-called Christians at the close of the third and
the beginning of the fourth century. By a succession of most
bitter and cruel persecutions, the great, strong characters

18 THE

among the Christians by that time had been stricken down;
and, as some of our historians record it, only weak and
timorous men were left in the church to grapple with the rising
power of "science, falsely so-called."* For a long time
the paganization of the Christian religion had been going on.
The men who esteemed themselves to be philosophers must
needs corrupt the simple truth of the "Apostles' Creed"
respecting the three persons of the Godhead, by the false
philosophies of the orient, and the idle speculations of the
Greeks; until this simple expression of Christian faith in God
was changed from what we find it in the "Apostle's Creed"
to the "Athanasian Creed," and those vain philosophiiiiigs and
definitions which have grown out of it, and which reduce the
dignity of the Godhead to a mere vacuum— to a * being" im-
personal, incorporeal, without '.body, without parts, without
passions; and I might add also, without sense or reason or
any attribute —an absolute nonentity, which they placed in the
seat of God, and attempted to confer upon this conception
divine powers, clothe it with divine attributes, and give it
title, knee and adoration — in a word, divine honors!

Let us now consider the form of God. In those scriptures
which take us back to the days of creation, when God created
the earth and all things therein — God is represented as saying
to someone:

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. * * * So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him,
male and female created he them.

Now, if that were untouched by "philosophy," I think it
would not be difficult to understand. Man was created in
the image and likeness of God. What idea does this language

* See Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. Cent. iv. bk. ii, ch. i, (note.)

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 19

convey to the mind of man, except that man, when his creation
was completed, stood forth the counterpart of God in form?
But onr philosophers have not been willin|;r to let it stand so.
They will not have God limited to any form. They will not
have him prescribed by the extensions of his person to some
line or other of limitation. No; he must needs be in his
person, as well as in mind or spirit, all-pervading, filling the
universe, with a center nowhere, with a circumference every-
where. We must expand the person of God out until it fills the
universe. And so they tell us that this plain, simple, straight-
forward language of Moses, which says that man was created
in the image of God — and which everybody can understand —
means, not the image of God's personality, but God's "moral
image!" Man was created in the "moral image" of God, they
say.

It is rather refreshing in the midst of so much nonsense
that is uttered upon this subject, in order to hide the truth and
perpetuate the false notions of a paganized Christianity, to find
now and then a Christian scholar who rises out of the vagaries
of modern Christianity and proclaims the straightforward truth.
Let me read to you the words of such an one — the Rev Dr. Charles
A. Briggs; and this note will be found in the Manual that your
Improvement Associations will use the coming winter. It may
be said, of course, by our Presbyterian friends, that Dr. Briggs
is a heretic; that he has been cast out of their church. Grant
it; but with open arms, he has been received by the Episcopal
church, and ordained into its priesthood; and has an influence that
is considerable in the Christian world, notwitbstandiog the door
of the Presbyterian church was shut in his face. But however
heretical Dr. Briggs' opinions may be considered by his former
Presbyterian brethren, his scholarship at least cannot be
challenged. Speaking of man being formed in the image and
likeness of God, he says:

20 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

Some theologians refer the form to the higher nature of man [that
is, to that "moral image" in likeness of which it is supposed man was
created]; but there is nothing in the text or context to suggest
such an interpretation. The context urges us to think of the
entire man as distinguished from the lower forms of creation, —
that which is essential to man, and may be communicated by
descent to his seed. — The bodily form cannot be excluded from the
representation.*

I say it is rather refre^ihing to hear one speak like that whose
scholarship, at least, is above all question. And yet still another
voice; and this time from one who stands high in scientific
circles, one who has written a work on the "Harmony of the
Bible and Science," which is a most valuable contribution to
that branch of literature. The gentleman I speak of is a Fellow
of the Royal Astronomical Society, and principal of the College
at Highbury New Park, England. On this subject of man being
created in the image of God, he says:

I think the statement that man was made in the Divine image is
intended to be more literal than we generally suppose; for judging
from what we read throughout the scriptures, it seems very clear
that our Lord, as well as the angels, had a bodily form similar to that of
man, only far more spiritual and far more glorious; but which,
however, is invisible to man unless special capabilities of sight are
given him, like that experienced by Elisha's servant when, in answer
to the prophet's prayer, he saw the heavenly hosts surrounding the
city of Dothan.

After discussing this question at some length, and
bringing to bear upon it numerous Biblical 'llustrations, this
celebrated man — Dr. Samuel Kinns — whose scientific and
scholarly standing I have already referred to, speaks of the

* Messianic Prophecy, p. 70.

THE "mormon*' doctrine OP DEITY. 21

effect of this belief upon man, and thus concludes his state-
ment on that head:

I am sure if a man would only consider a little more the divinity
of his human form, and would remember that God has indeed
created him in his own image, the thought would so elevate and re-
fine him that he would feel it his duty to glorify God in his body as
well as in his spirit.

But, as a matter of fact, I care not a fig for the state-
ments of either learned divines or scientists on this subject; for
the reason that we have higher and better authority to which
we can appeal — the scriptures. And here I pass by that
marvelous appearance of God unto Abraham in the plains of
Mamre, when three ''men" came into his tent, one of whom was
the Lord, who conversed with him, and partook of his hospitality,
and disclosed to him his intention with reference to the destruc-
tion of Sodom and Gomorrah.'"

I pass by also that marvelous revelation of God to Joshua,
when Joshua drew near to Jericho and saw a person in the form
of a man standing with sword in hand. Joshua approached him
and said: **Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?" "Nay,**
replied the person, "but as captain of the host of the Lord am I
now come." And Joshua bowed himself to the very earth in
reverence, and worshiped that august warrior.f Do not tel)
me that it was an "angel;" for had it been an angel, the
divine homage paid by Israel's grand old warrior would have
been forbidden. Do you not remember the time when John, the
beloved disciple, stood in the presence of an angel and awed by
the glory of his presence he bowed down to worship him, and how
the angel quickly caught him up and said: "See thou do it not;

* Gen. 18.

t Joshua 5: 13, 14.

22 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets,
and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God!"*
The fact that this personage before whom Joshaa bowed to the
earth received without protest divine worship from him, pro-
claims trumpet-tongaed that he indeed was God. Furthermore,
he bade Joshua to remove the shoes from his feet, for even the
ground on which he stood was holy.

I also pass by that marvelous vision given of the Son of God
to the pagan king of Babylon. This king had cast the three
Hebrew children into the fiery furnace, and lo! before his startled
vision were *four men** walking about in the furnace, "and," said
he, "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."t I pass
by, I say, such incidents as these, and come to more important
testimony.

The great Apostle to the Gentiles writing to the Colossian
saints, speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom we have re-
demption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,"
as being in the "image of the invisible God."J Again, writing
to the Hebrew saints, and speaking of Jesus, he says:

Who being the brightness of his [the Father*s] glory, and the
express image of his [the Father's] person, and upholding all things
by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins,
sat down on the right band of the Majesty on high.§

In the face of these scriptures, will anyone who belives in
the Bible say that it is blasp'iemy to speak of God as being
possessed of a bodily form? We find that the Son of God
himself stood among his fellows a man, with all the limitations
as to his body which pertain to man's body ; with head, trunk,

* Rev. 22: 8, 9. Also Rev. 19: 10.
t Dan. 3: 25.
t Col. 1:15.
§Heb. 1:1,2.

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 23

and limbs; with eyes, mouth and ears; with affections,, with
passions; for he exhibited anger as well as love in the course
of his ministry; be was a man susceptible to all that man could
suffer, called by way of pre-eminence the "man of sorrows," and
one "acquainted with grief;" for in addition to his own, he bore
yours and mine, and suffered that we might not suffer if we
would obey his gospel. And yet we are told that it is blas-
phemy to speak of God as being in human form — that it is
"heathenism." In passing, let me call your attention to the fact
that our sectarian friends are pretending to the use of gentb
phrases now. They do not propose to hurt our feelings at all
by harshness We are to be wooed by gentle methods. And
yet they denounce a sacred article of our faith as "heathen-
ism." I think if we were to use such language with reference
to them, or their creeds, they could not commend it for its
gentleness.

But I have a text to propose to them:
''What thmk ye oj Christr

I suppose that thousands of sermons every year are
preached from that text by Christian ministers. And now I ar-
raign them before their favorite text, and I ask them. What
think ye of Christ? Is he God? Yes. Is he man? Yes-
there is no escaping it. His resurrection and the immortality
of his body as well as of his spirit that succeeds his resurrection
id a reality. He himself attested ic in various ways. He ap-
peared to a number of the apostles, who, when they saw him,
were seized with fright, supposing they had seen a spirit; but he
said unto them, "Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts
arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones,
as ye see'me have."* Then, in further attestation of the reality

♦ Luke 24: 36-39.

24 THE

of his existence, as if to put away all doubt, he said, "Have ye
here any meat?" And they brought him some broiled fish and
honeycomb, and "he did eat before them."* Think of it! A
resurrected, immortal person actually eating of material food!
I wonder that our spiritually-minded friends do not arraign him
for such a material act as that after his resurrection! A
Scotch Presbyterian is particularly zealous for a strict observ-
ance of the Sabbath. One who was a little liberal in his views
of the law pertaining to the Sabbath was once arguing with an
orthodox brother on the subject, and urged that even Jesu€ so
far bent the law pertainig to the Sabbath that he justified his
disciples in walking through the fields of corn on the Sabbath,
and rubbing the ears of corn in their hands, blowing away the
chaflf, and eating the corn. "0 weel," says Donald, "mebbe the
Lord did that; but it doesna heighten him in my opeenion." And
so this resurrected, second personage of the Godhead ate mate-
rial food after his resurrection; but I take it that the fact does
not "heighten^* him in the opinion of our ultra spiritually-minded
folk. It comes in conflict, undoubtedly, with their notions of
what life ought to be after the resurrection.

But not only did he do this, but with his resurrected hands
he prepared a meal on the sea shore for his own disciples, and
invited them to partake of the food which he with his resur-
rected hands had provided.f Moreover, for forty days he
continued ministering to his disciples after his resurrection,
eating and drinking with them;} and then, as they gathered
together on one occasion, lo! he ascended from their midst, and
a cloud received him out of their sight. Presently two per-
sonages in white apparel stood beside them and said: "Ye men

* Luke 24: 41-43.

t John 21: 9-13 and Acts 10:41.

} Acts 10: 41, and Acts 1: 2, 3.

THE '^MORMON*' DOCTRINE OF DEITY. 25

of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same
Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come
in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."* What!
With his body of flesh and bones, with the marks in his hands and
in his feet? Shall he come again in that form? The old Jewish
prophet, Zechariah, foresaw that he would. He describes the
time of his glcjrious coming, when his blessed, nail-pierced
feet shall touch the Mount of Olives again, and it shall cleave
in twain, and open a great valley for the escape of the dis-
tressed house of Judah, sore oppressed in the siege of their
great city Jerusalem. We are told that "They shall look upon him
whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one
mourneth for his only son," and one shall look upon him in that
day and shall say, ''What are these wounds in thy hands and in
thy feet?" and he shall answer, "These are the wounds that I
received in the house of my friends."t

What think ye of Christ? Is he God? Yes. Is he man?
Yes. Will that resurrected, immortal, glorified man ever be
distilled into some bodiless, formless essence, to be diffused as
the perfume of a rose is diffused throughout the circumambient
air? Will he become an impersonal, incorporeal, immaterial
God, without body, without parts, without passions? Will it
be? Can it be? What think ye of Christ? Is he God? Yes.
Is he an exalted man? Yes; in the name of all the Gods he is.
Then why do sectarian ministers arraign the faith of the
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
because they believe and affirm that God is an exalted man, and
that he has a body, tangible, immortal, indestructible, and will
so remain embodied throughout the countless ages of eternity?
And since the Son is in the form and likeness of the Father, being.

* Acts 1: 11.

t Zech. the 12th, 13th and 14th chapters.

2

26 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

as Paul tells, "in the express image of his [the Father's] person"
— 80, too, the Father God is a man of immortal tabernacle, glor-
ified and exalted: for as the Son is, so also is the Father, a per-
sonage of tabernacle, of flesh and of bone as tangible as man's,
as tangible as Christ's most glorious, resurrected body.

II.

THE ONENESS OP GOD.

There are some expressions of scripture to r».onsider
which speak of the "oneness" of God. Speaking of the question
which agitated the early Christian Church about eating meats
which had been offered to idols, Pbul says: "We know that an
idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God
but one."* Moreover, Jesus himself made this strange remark
— that is, strange until one understands it: "I and my Father
are one;" and so much one are they that he said: "He that hath
seen me hath seen the Father. * * * Believest thou not that I
am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak
unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in
me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me."t Consequently our philosophers, es-
pecially those who lived when the present Christian creeds
concerning God were forming, thought that by some leger-
decain or other they must make the three Gods — the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost — just one person — one being; and
therefore they set their wits at work to perform the operation.

Let us seek out some reasonable expls^nation of the lan-
guage used. I refer again to the passage I just quoted from
the writings of Paul with reference to there being "none other

* I Cor. 8: 4.
t John 14.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 27

God but one." Immediately following what I read on that
point comes this language:

For though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or
in earth (as there be Gods many, and Lords many). But to us there
is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;
and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.*

Now I begin to understand. "To us," that is, pertaining
to us, "there is but one God." Just as to the English subject
there is but one sovereign, so "to us" there is but one God. But
that no more denies the existence of other Gods than the fact
that to the Englishman there is but one sovereign denies the
existence of other rulers over other lands While declaring
that "to us there is but one God," the passage also plainly says
that there "be Gods many and Lords many," and it is a mere
assumption of the sectarian ministers that reference is made
only to heathen gods.

Again, we shall find help in the following passage in the
14th chapter of John:

At that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me,
and I in you.

Observe this last scripture, I pray you. "I in you," and "ye
in me," as well as Jesus being in the Father. This oneness
existing between God the Father and God the Son can amount
to nothing more than this: that Jesus was conscious of the
indwelling presence of the Spirit of the Father within him,
hence he spoke of himself and his Father as being one, and the
Father within him doing the works. But mark you, not only
are the disciples to know that the Father is in him, that is, in
Christ, and that Jesus is in the Father, but the disciples also
are to be in Jesus. In what way? Jesus himself has furnished

* I Cor. 8: 4-6.

28 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

the explanation. When the solemn hour of his trial drew near,
and the bitter cup was to be drained to the very dregs, Jesus
sought God in secret prayer, and in the course of that prayer he
asked for strength of the Father, not only for himself, but for
his disciples also. He said:

And now I am no more in the world, but these [referring to his
disciples] are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep
through thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be
one, 08 we are,*

Now I begin to see this mystery of "oneness." What
does he mean when he prays that the disciples that God had
given him should be one, as he and the Father are one? Think
of it a moment, and while you are doing so I will read you
this;

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall be-
lieve on me through their word; that they all may be one: as thou.
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may he one in ws.f

Does that mean that the persons of all these disciples,
whose resurrection and individual immortality he must have
foreknown, shall all be merged into one person, and then
that one fused into him, or he into that one, and then the Father
consolidated into the oneness of the mass? No; a thousand times,
no, to such a proposition as that. But as Jesus found the indwell-
ing Spirit of God within himself, so he would have that same
Spirit indwelling in his disciples, as well as in those who should
believe on him through their testimony, in all time to come;
and in this way become of one mind, actuated by one will. It
must have been thoughts such as these that prompted Paul to
say to the Ephesians:

* John 17.
t John 17.

THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 29

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is
named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory,
to be strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man: that
Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and
grounded in him, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is
the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love
of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all
the fullness of God.*

So then, this oneness is not a oneness of persons, not a
oneness of individuals, but a oneness of mind, of knowledge, of
wisdom, of purpose, of will, that all might be uplifted and par-
take of the divine nature, until God shall be all in all. This is
the explanation of the mystery of the oneness both of the God-
head and of the disciples for which Jesus prayed.

Ill

THE PLURALITY OF GODS.

There are several other items in this branch of the subject
that would be of interest to discuss; but I must pay a little at-
tention to the indictment brought against us by sectarian
ministers on the question of a plurality of Gods.

We have already shown that the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct persons, and, so far
as personality is concerned, are three Gods. Their "oneness"
consists in being possessed of the same mind; they are one, too,
in wisdom, in knowledge, in will and purpose; but as individuals
they are three, each separate and distinct from the other, and
three is plural. Now, that is a long way on the road towards
proving the plurality of Gods. But, in addition to this, 1
would like to know from our friends — the critical sectarian
ministers who complain of this part of our faith — the meaning

♦Bph.3: 14-19.

30 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

of the following expressions, carefully selected from the scrip-
tures:

"The Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords/**
That is from Moses.

"The Lord God of Gods, the Lord God of Gods, he knoweth,
and Israel he shall know."t ^^^^ is ^ Tom Joshua.

"0 give thanks unto the God of Gods! ♦ * give thanks
to the Lord of Lords!" J That is David.

"And shall speak marvelous things against the God of
Gods."§ That is Daniel.

"The Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of Lords,
and King of K'!ngs."|| That is the beloved disciple of Jesus —
John the Revelator.

Had I taken such expressions from the lips of the pagan
kings or false prophets who are sometimes represented as
speaking in the scriptures, you might question the propriety
of making such quotations in support of the doctrine I teach;
but since these expressions come from prophets and recognized
servants of God, I ask those who criticize our faith in the mat-
ter of a plurality of Gods to explain away those expressions of
the scriptures. Furthermore, there is Paul's language, in his
letter to the Corinthians, already quoted, where he says, "that
there be Gods many and Lords many, whether in heaven or in
earth." Had his expression been confined to those that are
called gods in earth it is possible that there might be some good
ground for claiming that he had reference to the heathen gods,
and not true Gods; but he speaks of those that "are Gods in

* Deut. 10: 17.
t Josh. 22: 22.
t Psalm 137; 2, 3.
§ Daniel 11: 36.
II Rev. 17: 14.

. THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 31

heaven" as well as gods in earth. Right in line with this idea
is the following passage from the Psalms of the Prophet David:
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth
among the Gods."* These, undoubtedly, are the Gods in heaven
to whom Paul alludes, among whom the God referred to stands;
among whom he judges. This is no referenae to the heathen
gods, but to the Gods in heaven, the true Gods.

In this same Psalm, too, is the passage which seems to in-
troduce some telling evidence from the Lord Jesus Christ him-
self, viz: "I have said ye are Gods, and all of you are the chil-
dren of the Most High." You remember how on one occasion the
Jews took up stones to stone Jesus, and he called a halt for
just a moment, for he wanted to reason with them about it. He
said:

Many good works have I shown you from the Father; for which
of these works do ye stone me?

Their answer was:

For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and
because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

What an opportunity here for Jesus to teach them that
there was but one God! How easily too, had he been so dis-
posed, he could have explained about his "human nature" and
his "divine nature," and shown to them the distinction; for these
words have become part of the phraseology of Christian
polemics. Bat he did not do that. On the contrary, he affirmed
the doctrine of a plurality of Gods. He said to them:

Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods ? If he called
them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture can-
not he broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and

♦ Psalm 82: 1.

32 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son
of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But
if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works.

Higher authority on this question cannot be quoted than
the Son of God himself. While there is much more that could
and doubtless ought to be said on that branch of the subject, I
must leave it here, because I have still another matter to pre-
sent to you, on another branch of the subject; and that is, our
belief that there is a possibility, through development, through
growth, through doing what Jesus admonished his disciples to
do — **Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect"
— that the sons of God, somewhere and some time, mky rise to
a dignity that the Father and our Elder Brother have already at-
tained unto.

IV.
the future possibilities for man.

Is there any doubt about men being the sons of God? If I
thought there was any in your minds, I would like to read to you
the- words of an authority upon this question. Paul, in speak-
ing of the unknown God to whom the Athenians had erected an
altar, said to them:

God that made the world and all things therein • • ♦ bath
made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of
the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the
bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply
they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from
every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being;
as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his off-
spring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought
not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone,
graven by art and man's device.*

* Acts 17: 24-29.

THE mormon'' doctrine OF DEITY. 33

Why ought they not to think that the Godhead is like
unto gold or silver, graven by art and man's device? Because
the very divinity within them, their own kinship with God, ought
to have taught them better than to bow down to images of
wood and stone, the creation of man's hands. 'Te are the
offspring of God," said the apostle. And David, as quoted a
moment ago, said: *'I have said: Ye are Gods, and all of you
are children of the Most High." Upon which passage, it must
be remembered, Jesus fixed the seal of his approval, as shown a
moment ago, where he quotes it in controversy with the Jews.

Is it a strange and blasphemous doctrine, then, to hold
that men at the last shall rise to the dignity that the Father
has attained? Is it "heathenish" to believe that the offspring
shall ultimately be what the parent is? My soul, I wonder why
men at all conscious of the marvelous powers within themselves
should question this part of our faith. Think for a moment
what progress a man makes within the narrow limits of this life.
Regard him as he lies in the lap of his mother, a mere piece of
organized, red pulp — a new-born babe! There are eyes, indeed,
that may see, but cannot distinguish objects; ears that may
hear, but cannot distinguish sounds; hands as perfectly fash-
ioned as yours or mine, but helpless, withal; feet and limbs, but
they are unable to bear the weight of his body, much less
walk. There lies a man in embryo, but helpless. And yet,
within the span of three score years and ten, by the marvelous
working of that wondrous power within that little mass of pulp,
what a change may be wrought! From that helpless babe may
arise one like Demosthenes, or Cicero, or Pitt, or Burke, or
Fox, or Webster, who shall compel listening senates to hear
him, and by his master mind dominate their intelligence and
their will, and compel them to think in channels that he shall
mark out for them. Or from such a babe may come a Nebu-
chadnezzar, or an Alexander, or a Napoleon, who shall found

34 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

empires or give direction to the course of history. Prom
such a beginning may come a Lycurgus, a Solon, a Moses, or a
Justinian, who shall give constitutions and laws to kingdoms,
empires and republics, blessing happy millions unborn in their
day, and direct the course of nations along paths of orderly
peace and virtuous liberty. From the helpless babe may come
a Michael Angelo, who from some crude mass of stone from
the mountain side shall work out a heaven-born vision that
shall hold the attention of men for generations, and make
them wonder at the God-like powers of man that has created
an all but living and breathing statue. Or a Mozart, a Beetho-
ven, or a Handel, may come from [the babe, and call out from
the silence those melodies and the richer harmonies that lift
the soul out of its present narrow prison house and give it
fellowship for a season with the Gods. Out from that pulp-
babe may arise a master mind who shall seize the helm of the
ship of state, and give to a nation course and direction through
troublesome times, and anchor it at last in a haven of peace,
prosperity and liberty; crown it with honor, too, and give it a
proud standing among the nations of the earth; while he, the
savior of his country, is followed by the benedictions of his
countrymen.

And all this may be done by a man in this life! Nay, it
has been done, between the cradle and the grave — within the
span of one short life. Then what may not be done in eternity
by one of these God-men? Remove from his path the incident
of death; or, better yet, contemplate him as raised from the
dead; and give to him in the full splendor of manhood's estate,
immortality, endless existence, what may we not hope that
he will accomplish? What limits can you venture to fix as
marking the boundary of his development, of his progress?
Are there any limits that can be conceived? Why should there
be any limits thought of? Grant immortality to man and God

THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 35

for hisguide, what is there in the way of intellectual, moral,
and spiritual development that he may not aspire to? If within
the short space of mortal life there are men who rise up out
of infancy and become masters of the elements of fire and
water and earth and air, so that they well-nigh rule them as Gods,
what may it not be possible for them to do in a few hundreds
or thousands of millions of years? What may they not do in
eternity? To what heights of power and glory may they not
ascend?

It is idle today to ask . men to be satisfied with the old
sectarian notions of man's future life, where at best he is to be
but one of a minstrelsy twanging harps and singing to the
glory of an incorporeal, bodiless, passionless, immaterial in-
comprehensible God. Such conceptions of existence no longer
satisfy the longings of the intelligent or spiritual- minded man."^

* On this subject Sir Robert Ball, the great English astronomer
and man of science, and who is feelingly spoken of as ''a man with
singular capacity for popularizing science without debasing if — ^has
the following passage:

''The popular notion that man, once escaped from the confine-
ment of the body, does nothing except sit on a cloud and sing psalms
to the glory of a God, whose glory is so perfect without him that he
was content when man was not in being, rests upon no evidence,
whether of reason or revelation, and seems to us derived either from
man's long experience of overtoil and misery and his enjoyment,
therefore, of their absence, or from the inherent Asiatic dislike of
exertion. Why should we not work forever as well as now? If man
can live again, and grow in that new life, and exert himself to carry
out the always hidden, but necessarily magnificeit purpose of the
Creator, then indeed, his existence may have some importance, and
the insignificance of his place of origin be forgotten. For he has an
inherent quality which does not belong, so far as the mind can see
what must always remain partially dark, even the Divine; he is

36 THE "mormon'* doctrine op deity.

Growth, enlargement, expansion for his whole nature, as he
recognizes that nature in its intellectual, moral, spiritual and
social demands, are what his soul calls for; and the systems of
theology that rise not to the level of these hopes are un-
worthy man's attention.

Keep these thoughts in mind for a moment, I pray you.
That is, remember the powers in man, what he has attained to
in this life, and what it is conceivable for him to attain
unto after the resurrection of the dead, when death shall
have been removed from his pathway. Keep this in mind,
while 1 bring to bear on the theme under consideration another
line of facts.

Let us consider, just for a moment, and in a very simple
manner, the universe in which man lives. And let us start with
what we know, and keep well within those lines. First of all,
then, as to the earth itself: Thanks to the knowledge man now
has respecting the earth it is no longer regarded as the
center of the universe, around which revolve sun and moon
and stars, that in the ages of darkness were thought to have
been created for the sole purpose of giving light by day and
by night to the earth. No; man has learned the true relation of
the earth to these other objects in the universe. He knows
that the earth is but one of a number of planets — one of a
group of eight major planets, and a larger number of minor
ones, that revolve regularly around the sun — and one of the small-
est of the group of major planets at that. Outside of this

capable of effort, and in the effort and through the effort, not
ODly of growing greater than before, but of adding force to an
inanimate thing like his own body. What if that power of effort
should be slowly aggrandized until man, now a little higher than the
monkey, became a really great being?" ("Self Culture" for
March, 1899.)

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 37

group of planets, with whose motions and laws man has
become familiar, is a vast host of what are called *'fixed stars;"
that is, stars that apparently have no motion,bat which really do
move, only their orbits are so immense that man with the unaided
eye can not discern their movements — hence we call them **fixed
stars."* Our astronomers have learned that these "fixed stars"
are not like the planets which move in their orbits about
our sun, but, on the contrary, are like the sun itself, self-
luminous bodies, and doubtless like the sun the center of opaque
planetary groups; or at least we may say that reasoning from
analogy, that is regarded as a very probable fact.

Sir Robert Ball in speaking of these worlds and the
probability of their beihg inhabited says:

We know of the existence of thirty millions of stars or suns,
many of them much more magnificent than the one which gives light
to our system. The majority of them are not visible to the eye, or
even recognizable by the telescope, but sensitized photographic
plates — which are for this purpose eyes that can stare unwinking for

* ''To the unassisted eye, the stars seem to preserve the same
relative positions in the celestial sphere generation after generation.
If Job, Hipparchus, or Ptolemy should again look upon the heavens,
he would, to all appearance see Aldebaran, Orion, and the Pleiades
exactly as he saw them thousands of years ago, without a single
star being moved from its place. But the refined methods of modern
astronomy, in which the telescope is brought in to measure spaces
atisolutely invisible to the eye, have shown that this seeming un-
changeability is not real, but that the stars are actually in motion,
only the rate of change is so slow that the eye would not, in most
cases, notice it for thousands of years. In ten thtusand years
quite a number of stars, especially the brighter ones, would be seen
to have moved, while it would take a hundred thousand years to in-
troduce a very noticeable change in the aspect of the constellations.''
(Newcomb's Astronomy, pp. 464-5.)

38 THE '*mormon" doctrine op deity.

hours at a time — have revealed their existence beyond all doubt or
question, though most of them are almost inconceivably distant,
thousands or tens of thousands of times as far off as our sun. A
telegraphic message, for example, which would reach the sun in eight
minutes, would not reach some of these stars in eighteen hundred
years. The human mind, of course, does not really conceive such
distances, though they can be expressed in formula which the human
mind has devised, and the bewildering statement is from one point
of view singularly depressing. It reduces so greatly the probable
importance of man in the universe. It is most improbable, almost
impossible, that these great centers of light should have been created
to light up nothing, and as they are far too distant to be of use to
us, we may fairly accept the hypothesis that each one has a system
of planets around it like our own. Taking an average of only ten
planets to i ach san, that hypothesis indicates the existence, within
the narrow range to which human observation is still confined, of at
least three hundred millions of separate worlds, many of them doubt-
less of gigantic size, and it is nearly inconceivable that those worlds
can be wholly devoid of living and sentient beings upon them.
Granting the to us impossible hypothesis that the final cause of the
universe is accident, a fortuitious concourse of self-existent atoms,
still the accident which produced thinking beings upon this little and
inferior world must have frequently repeated itself: while if, as
we hold, there is a sentient Creator, it is difiicult to believe,
without a revelation to that effect, that he has wasted such glorious
creative power upon mere masses of insensible matter. God
cannot love gases. The high probability, at least, is that there
are millions of worlds — for, after all, what the sensitized paper
sees must be but an infinitesimal fraction of the whole — occupied by
sentient beings.*

On this subject Richard A. Proctor, in his "Other Worlds
Than Ours," also remarks:

To sum up what we have learned so far from the study of the

■ Self Culture for March, 1899.

THE "mormon" DOCTEINE OP DEITY. 39

starry heavens — we see that, besides our sun there are myriads of
other suns in the immensity of space; that these suns are large and
massive bodies capable of swaying by their attraction systems of
worlds as 'important as those which circle around our own sun; that
these suns are formed of elements similar to those which constitute
our own sun, so that the worlds which circle round them may be
regarded as in all probability similar in constitution to this earth;
and that from these suns all forms of force which we know to be
necessary to the existence of organized beings on our earth are
abundantly emitted. It seems reasonable to conclude that these
suns are girt round by dependent systems of worlds. Though
we cannot, as in the case of the solar system, actual see such worlds,
yet the mind presents them before us, various in size, various
in structure, infinitely various in their physical condition and
habitudes.'*'

With the unaided eye there is ordinarily within the range
of our vision some five or six thousand of these "fixed stars."
With the aid of the telescope, however, there is brought
within the range of man's vision between forty and fifty millions
of fixed stars; with the probability existing that all these, as
well as those fixed stars of sufiScient magnitude to be within the
range of our unaided vision, are, like our own sun, the centers of
groups of opaque planets, which, because they are opaque, cannot
be seenby us. But'this is but the beginning of the story of the
universe. Immense as are the numbers of "fixed stars" to which
I have called attention, and their distances so great that in
some cases it would take a ray of light a million years to reach
us from them, though light moves through space at such speed
that it will travel some eight times around the earth in a
single second — immense, I say, as are these numbers of "fixed
stars" revealed to man by the telescope, they are after all
but as the first "street lamps" of God's great universe — but a

''Other Worlds Than Ours," p. 240.

40 THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY.

few of the motes in God's sunbeam. Let me explain. You
have seen a ray of sunlight dart into a room through the half
drawn curtains, and have observed that it reveals the existence
of innumerable motes floating about in the sunbeam. You know
that if the sunbeam should shift into another part of the room
it will reveal the existence of motes in that part of the room also
— millions of them. So you know that the atmosphere in the
whole room is filled with such motes; that the atmosphere in
every room in your house is in the same condition — that is,
filled with motes; so all the rooms in all the houses of your
friends, or in the city; so also the whole circumambient air of
the whole earth. Well, what man has discovered in space
pertaining to the existence of "fixed stars" — great, self-
luminous bodies, unquestionably the centers of planetary systems
the same as our sun is — all this, I say, is but as the sunbeam
revealing the existence of a few of the motes that exist
in some little corner of a room: for out on the farthest edge
of space explored by man's vision aided by the most power-
ful helps he can devise, man in contemplation can stand and con-
ceive of still greater stretches of space filled by still more
numerous suns, the centers of planetary systems, than has yet
come within the range of bis vision. And standing thus in
the midst of the universe, he beginp to comprehend that great
truth uttered by Joseph Smith when he contemplated the
creations of the Gods: "There is no space where there is
no kingdom [created world], and there is no kingdom where
there is no space, either a greater or a lesser space."* But this
is beside the subject.

What I want you to do is to think how small and insignifi-
cant this earth of ours is, even in comparison with some of the
planets of our own system, some of which are hundreds of

♦ Doc. & Gov. sec. 88: 36, 37.

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 41

times larger than our earth.'*' And then the sun, the center of
the system, itself — what a speck it is in the universe! Though
outweighing the combined mass of all the planets of which he
is the center seven hundred and thirty times over, still he is
but a point in the universe! To quote the words of an eminent
author:

As there are other globes like our earth, so, too, there are
other worlds like our solar system. There are self-lumiaous suqs
exceeding in number all computation. The dimensions of this earth
pass iato nothingness in comparison with the dimensions of the solar
system, and that system, in its tarn, is only an invisible point if
placed in relation with the countless hosts of other systems which
form, with it, clusters of stars. Our solar system, far from being
alone in the universe, is only one of an extensive brotherhood, bound
by common laws and subject to like influences. Even on the very
verge of creation, where imagination might lay the beginning of
the realms of chaos, we see unbounded proofs of order, a regularity
in the arrangement of inanimate things, suggesting to us that
there are other intellectual creatures like us, the tenants of those
islands in the abysses of space. Though it may take a beam of light
a million of years to bring to our view those distant worlds, the end
is not yet. Far away in the depths of space we catch the faint
gleams of other groups of stars like our own. The finger of a man
can hide them in their remoteness. Their ^ast distances from one
another have dwindled into nothing. They and their movement s
have lost all individuality; the innumerable suns of which they are
composed blend all their collected lights into one pale milky glow.

Thus extending our view from the earth to the solar system,
from the solar system to the expanse of the group of stars to which
we telong, we behold a series of gigantic nebular creations rising up

* The planet Jupiter, for example, has a diameter of about 85,-
000 miles, while the earth's diameter is but ab^ut 8,000 miles. In
volume Jupiter exceeds our earth about 1,300 times, while in mass it
exceeds it 213 times. (See **Newcomb's Astronomy," p. 339.)

8

42 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

one above another, and forming greater and greater colonies of
worlds. No numbers can express them, for they make the firmament
a haze of stars. Uniformity, even though it be the uniformity of
magnificence, tires at last, and we abandon the survey, for our eyes
can only behold a boundless prospect and conscience tells us our own
unspeakablein significance."'

And the earth itself, then, what of that? What an insig-
nificant thing It is in the creations of God ! With all its islands
and continents, its rivers, lakes and mighty oceanS; its moun-
tains and its valleys; its towns, cities and all the tribes of* men,
together with all their hopes and fears and petty ambitions —
all is but a mote in God's sunbeam — less than a single grain
of sand on the sea shore!

What I want to ask in the light of these reflections is
this: Is it such a wonderful thing to believe that at the last,
one of God's sons shall preside over this little earth as the God-
president or God of it? That our Father Adam, the "Grand
Patriarch" of our race — the "Ancient of Days" — "Michael, the
Archangel" — give him what title you will out of the many
which are his — is it so hard to believe that he will eventually
attain to the dignity of the governorship of this earth, when it
is redeemed and sanctified and becomes one of the glorified
spheres of God?

Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "Mor-
mons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President
Brigham Young to the effect that Adam will thus be the God
of this world. No, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of
that doctrine. If you see any change come over our counte-
nances when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonish-
ment, that any one at all capable of grasping the largeness and
extent of the universe— the grandeur of existence and the pos-

Drapefs "Intellectual Development of Europe," vol. 2, p. 292,

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 43

sibilities in man for growth, for progress, should be so lean of
intellect, should have such a paucity of understanding, as to
call it in question at all. That is what our change of counte-
nance means — not shame for the doctrine Brigham Young taught.
I feel that I must have wearied you with so long a dis-
course; I know very well I have wearied myself; and yet I am
loth to quit this splendid field for thought. The subject, and
our conception of it, must ever be grander than it is within our
ability to express. It is beyond our power to grasp it and make
it plain in words. I can see in this "Mormon" doctrine of God
the highest spirituality that the mind of man is capable of
grasping. If our sectarian friends think' that in us there is any
drifting away from the teachings of our prophets upon this sub-
ject, any shadow of turning, and that we of modern days are
growing more spiritual than were they, it is not that we are
changing,or leaving the old moorings of our faith ; but it is because
they themselves are giving a little more careful attention to our
doctrines, and begin to catch their first sight of the grand
spirituality which all the while has pervaded our belief in the
Gods and their government, and the heights of glory to which
men — the offspring of the Gods — may finally attain.

CHAPTER II.

REPLY TO ELDER ROBERTS' MORMON VIEWS OP DEITY,* BY REV.

C. VAN DER DONCKT, OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,

POCATELLO, IDAHO.

I

I am very grateful for the privilege of being allowed
space in your magazine to reply to Mr. B. H. Roberts' defense
of the "Mormon Views of the Deity."

* The following note preceded Rev. Van Der Donckt's reply*
when published in the Improvement Era: "In the first two numbers of
the present volume of the Era, an article on the Characteristics of the
Deity from a * 'Mormon" View Point, appeared from the pen of Elder B.
H. Roberts. It was natural that ministers of the Christian denomina-
tions should differ from the views there expressed. Shortly after its
appearance, a communication was received from Reverend Van Der
Donckt, of the Catholic church, of Pocatello, Idaho, asking that a
reply which he had written might be printed in the Era, His article
is a splendid exposition of the generally accepted Christian views of
God, well written and to the point, and which we think will be read
with pleasure by all who are interested in the subject. We must, of
course, dissent from many of the deductions with which we cannot
at all agree, but we think the presentation of the argument from
the other side will be of value to the Elders who go forth to preach
the Gospel, as showing them what they must meet on this subject.
It is therefore presented in full ; the Era, of course, reserving the
right to print any reply that may be deemed necessary. — Editors."

THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY- 45

1. First, Mr. Roberts asserts: "Jesus came with no ab-
stract definition of God.'' He certainly gave a partial defini-
tion of God when declaring: "God is a spirit" (John 4: 24).
Now, although we must believe whatever God reveals to us
upon one single word of his, just as firmly as upon a thousand,
nevertheless, I will add that St. Paul, who solemnly testifies
that he received oj the Lord thai which he delivered unto the
Christians, (I Cor. 11: 23) also states: "The Lord is a spirit"
(II Cor. 3: 17).

I am well aware that the Latter-day Saints interpret those
texts as meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what nearly
the whole of mankind, Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans,
have believed for ages cannot be upset by gratuitous assertions
of a religious innovator of this last century. Again, the con-
text of the Bible admits of no such interpretation. And if
anyone should still hesitate to accept the universally received
meaning of the word spirit, our risen Savior settles the mat-
ter. As his disciples, upon first seeing him after his resurrec-
tion, were troubled and frightened, supposing they beheld a
spirit, Jesus reassured them, saying, '*A spirit hath not flesh
and bones as you see me to have" (Luke 24: 87-39).

2. Another very strong and explicit statement is: "Bless-
ed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona [son of John] because fl£sh and
hlood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in
heaven" (Matt. 16: 17). As Christ has asked, *'What do men
say the Son of Man is" (Matt. 16: 13). There is an evident
antithesis and contrast between the opinion of men and the
profession of Peter, which is based upon revelation. The strik-
ing opposition between men, fl£sh and blood, and the Father,
evidently conveys the sense that God hath not flesh and blood
like man, but is a spirit.

3. That God is a spirit is proved moreover by the fact
thlEit he is called invisible in the Bible. All material beings

46 THE **MORMON*' DOCTRINE OP DEITY.

are visible. Absolutely invisible beings are immaterial or
bodiless: God is absolutely invisible, therefore God is imma-
terial or bodiless.

Moses' unshaken faith is thus described by St. Paul: ''He
was strong as seeing him that is invisibk" (Heb. 11: 27).

"No man hath seen God at any time" (I John 4: 12).

**rhe King of kings — whom no man hath seen nor can see."
(I Tim. 15: 16).

In the light of these clear, revealed statements, how shall
we explain the various apparitions of God mentioned in the
Bible? Tertuliian, (A. D. 160-245), Ambrose (330-397), Au-
gustine (354-430) and other Fathers, whose deep scholarship is
acknowledged by Protestants and Catholics alike, informs us
that God the Father is called invisible because he never ap-
peared to bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested himself as
an angel, or through an angel, and |as man [after his incarna-
tion. He is the eternal revelation of the Father. It is neces-
sary to remark! that whenever the eternal Son of God, or angels
at God's behest, showed themselves to man, they became visible
only through a body or a material garb assumed for the occa-
sion (see Cardinal Newman's "Development of Christian Doc-
trine," 9th edition, pp. 136 and 138).

. I am well aware of St. Paul's, **We now see as through a
glass darkly, but then face to face" (I Cor. 12: 13.) "In thy
light we shall see light (Ps. 35: 10.)

The first and chief element of the happiness of heaven
will consist in the beatific vision; that is, in seeing God face
to face, unveiled as he really is. The "face to face" however
is, literally true only of our blessed Savior who ascended into
heaven with his sacred body. Otherwise, as God is a spirit, he has
no body and consequently no face. In paradise, spirits (angels
and our souls) see spirits. We shall see God and angels, not
with the eye of the body, nor by the vibrations of cosmic

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 47

light, but with the spiritual eye, with the soul's intellectual
perception, elevated by a supernatural influx from God. As in
ordinary vision, the image of an object is impressed on the
retina, so in the beatific vision, the perfect image of God
will be reflected on the soul, impressing on it a vivid re-
presentation of him. We shall thus enjoy an intellectual
possession of him, very different from our possession of earthly
things.

4. That angels as well as God are bodiless beings, is also
clearly proved by Holy Writ. To which of the angels said he at
any time: "Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy
footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits sent to minister
for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?"
(Heb. 1: 13, 14.) Again, **Our wrestling is not against flssh
and blood, but against the rulers of the world of this darkness,
against the spirits of wickedness" (Eph. 6: 12).

Could plainer words be found to teach that angels, both
good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies? Now, the Creator
is certainly more perfect than his creatures, and pure minds
are more perfect than minds united to bodies (men). ["The
corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly
habitation presseth down the mind" (Wis. 9: 15.) "Who shall
deliver me from this body of death?" (St. Paul).] Therefore, the
Creator is a pure spirit.

5. It is a well known fact that all men, after the ex-
ample of the inspired Writings, make frequent use of the
figure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the Deity a
human body, human members, human passions, etc. ; and that is
done, not to imply that God is possessed of form, limbs, etc.,
but simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more
intelligible to man, who, while he tarries in this world, can
perceive things and even ideas only through his senses or
through bodily organs.

48 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

That even the Latter-day Saints thus understand such ex-
pressions is evident from their catechism (chapter 5: Q. 9).
Yet it is from certain expressions of the same inspired Book
that they conclude that God has a body. Now I contend that,
if we must understand the Bible literally in those passages
(God created man in his own image, (Genesis 1: 27, and Genesis
32: 24, etc., and Exodus 24: 9, etc.) from which they attempt
to prove that God has a body, we must interpret it literally in
other similar passages: so that if Moses, etc., really saw the
feet of God (Exodus 24: 10), then we must hold that the
real hand of God is meant by David in (Psalm 138) (Hebrew
Bible Ps. 139; 13: 9; 9; 10): "If I take my wings early in the
morning, and dwell in the uttermost part of the sea, even there
shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me."
And as the Psalmist says also: "Whither shall I flee from thy
face? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; if I descend into
hell, thou art there" (Psalm 139: 7, 8). Have we then ac-
cording to "Mormon" standards, not the right to infer that
God has such a long hand as to extend to the uttermost parts
of the sea, and such an extremely long face, reaching from
heaven to hell? To this, I am sure, even the gloomiest
Protestants would object. By the way, should we not also
conclude that David had wings? ("If I take my wings early in
the morning, and fly," etc.) unless we admit that the royal
Prophet anticipated our modern scientists, the Brazilian Santos-
Dumont, Professor Zahm of Notre Dame, Ind., etc., in experi-
menting with flying machines.

6. A sixth proof of the truth that God has not a body,
and therefore is not an exalted man, is the fact of the incarna-
tion of the Son of God. The "Mormons" admit that Jesus
Christ is the Great I Am, (from all eternity to all eternity)
therefore, God (Doctrine and Covenants section 39). By the
by, I see no mention of this fundamental Christian truth of the

THE "mormon*' doctrine OP DEITY. 45

incarnation, in the sacred books of the Latter-day Saints, not
even in their catechism. Yet what is more capable of winning
cold hearted, careless people to the love of God than the ex-
position of this mystery which has been hidden for ages and
generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (Col. 1:26)
"God so loved the world as to give us his only begotten Son,
that whosoever beliveth in him may not perish but may have
everlasting life" (John 3: 16.)

So the "Mormons" admit that Jesus Christ is God for all
eternity. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ became a man at
a specified time; therefore, Jesus Christ, or God was not man
before that specified time.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God and the Word was God. And tke Word was made flesh and
dwelt among us'' (John 1: 1-14). It is plain that the Son of
God became flesh only at the time of his sojourn on earth. Now,
had he been flesh, or man, before, as "Mormons" hold, how
could he become what he was already from all eternity?
No; not from the beginning of the world, but only now once,
at the end of ages, he (Jesus) hath appeared for the destruc-
tion of sin, by the sacrifice of himself. When he came into
the world, he said: "Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not,
btU a body thou hast fitted to me J' Then said I: "Behold I
come" (Heb. 9: 26 and 10: 5, 7.) "Let this mind be in you
which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form (nature,
glory, majesty) of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God (deemed it not fitting to assume to his human nature the
glory and majesty due him without labor and suffering) but
emptied (stripped) himself, taking the form of a servant, being
made in the likeness of men and in habit (in his whole exterior)
jound as a man (Philip. 2 : 5,) etc. Again : "//i him (Christ) d well-
eth all the fulness of the Godhead corporally*^ (Col. 2: 9.) Had
God a body (Latin corpus) what sense would there be in St. Paul's

50 THE "mormon'' doctrine op deity.

corporally or bodily? AH save **Mormon8," understand St. Paul
to mean that in Christ the true God manifested himself in the
flesh, or as man.

'^Because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he
also himself in like manner hath been partaker of the same, that
through death he might destroy him who hath the empire of
death. For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels, but the
seed of Abraham, he taketh hold, wherefore, it behooved him
in all things to be made like unto his brethren" (Heb. 2: 14-16.)
''Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is of God" (I John 4: 2). **Many seducers are gone out into
the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"
(II John 1: 7). Why do the New Testament writers lay so much
stress upon the taking of flesh by Jesus Christ ? Evidently we
must see in those expressions (the Word was made flesh, etc.)
more than a Hebraism, for *'He became man" (Gen. 6: 12; Is.
40: 5). The inspired authors want to teach us humility by im-
pressing upon our minds the excessive abasement of the Eternal
Son of God in uniting his Divinity, not to the nature of an angel,
but to that of an inferior creature, as man is. They have still the
further aim of impuning the hecetics, of the early days of the
Church the Docetse, Cerinthus, Ebion, etc., who, attributing the
flesh to an evil principle, and therefore holding it as utterly pol-
luted, maintained that Christ had not a real body of flesh but
only an apparent body. This we learn from SS. Irenseus, Jerome,
Clem, of Alex., etc.

7. Another proof that God is not an exalted man; that is,
that he was not what we are now, aad became perfected into
God, is the direct statement of the Bible: ''God is not as a
man that he should lie, nor as the Son oj man that he should he
changed!^ (Num. 23: 19). "I will not execute the fierceness
of my wrath because I am God and not man" (Psalm 11: 19).

8. Another most striking proof is to be found in God's

THE '*M0RM0N" doctrine OP DEITY. 51

immatability. The Latter-day Saints teach that God was once
imperfect, as man is; the Bible teaches the very opposite:
''Thou art always the self'Sam^' (Psalm 101: 26). **Iam the Lord
and I change noV (Mai. 3: 6). "lAe Father of lights toiUi whom
there is no change nor shadow of alteration^ (The Latin alter
means other. So the Lord is never other from all eternity)-
(James 1: 17).

9. Finally, the Latter-day Saints' theory of the Man- God
supposes a past and present with God. The Bible excludes that
succession of time, and speaks ofGod as the Everlasting Present-
"I Am Who Am." "Before Abraham was, I am!" "Prom etern-
ity and to eternity thou art God" (Psalm 89: 2). "His power
is an everlasting power" (Daniel 7: 14).

PHILOSOPHICAL PROOFS OP GOD'S SIMPLICITY OR SPIRITUALITY.

The ''Mormons" admit that God existed from all eternity;
consequently, there was no time at which God did not exist.
Therefore, the Eternal Being, or God, must be simple.

A compound is, at least by nature, posterior to its com-
ponent parts. If God is a compound, he is posterior to his
component parts. Therefore, he would not be eternal; therefore,
not God.

Illustration. The Latter-day Saints believe that God cre-
ates the souls of men, long before their conception. Man is a
composite being, spirit and flesh being the component parts.
Man is evidently posterior to his elements; in other words, be-
fore a human being can exist, there must first be a spirit, a soul;
and in the second place there must be the embryo (or foetus);
and, thirdly, both of these existing elements must be united be-
fore a human being comes into existence. No need of more il-
lustration. Fancy a clock, an engine, a shoe, or any com>
posite being. The parts must exist before the whole. Then to

6^ JJUS the ''mormon** doctrine 0^ DfilTY.

have the compound, some one or something mast do the com-
pounding, or put the ingredients or elements together. Who
then did compound the Eternal ? Not himself, as no one can
work before he exists: not another being, as no other being
existed before it was created by God. God is the necessary
Being; i. e. who could not not exist. Something exists; there-
fore, there exists the Necessary Being. Everything that exists
is produced or unproduced. Now all things connot be pro-
duced; for whatever is produced or made is produced by another,
(otherwise it would have made itself, which is impossible, as
nothing can act before it exists). This other (the producer) is
either a necessary being or a produced being. If produced, it
must have been produced by another. Thus we must finally
come to a being that was not produced, or a necessary being.
That necessary being (who was not made and who always ex-
isted) is God.

If God were an aggregate of parts, these parts would be
either necessary beings or contingent (that do not necessarily
exist); or some would be necessary and some contingent. None
of these suppositions are tenable, therefore, God is not an ag-
gregate of parts.

First supposition: If the parts of God were necessary be-
ings there would be several independent beings, which the infin-
ity of God precludes. God would not be infinite, if there were
even one other being independent of him, as his power, etc.,
would not reach that being.

Second supposition: The Necessary Being would be the
skggregate of several contingent beings. An unreasonable sup-
position: contingent beings cannot by their addition or collec-
tion lose their essential predicate of contingency; in other
words, the nature of the parts clings to the whole.

The third supposition is equally absurd, for if some part
exit necessarily, it must be infinite in every perfection; there-

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 53

fore, it would of itself be sufficient to constitute God, and could
not be improved by the addition of other parts.

The Necessary Being must he infinite^ or illimitable. Noth-
ing is done without a cause. No cause of limitation to the
Necessary Being can be found.

If finite, or limited, he must be limited by his own essence,
or by another, or by himself.

a. He cannot be limited by his own essence, for his
essence, is actual Being or existence: / Am Who Am. No
perfection is repugnant to that essence; for every perfection is
some existenc9, something that is. No defect necessarily flows
from that essence, for defect is in a thing only in as much as that
thing is not in some sense or regard; now in the notion or in
the concept of him who is Being itself (I Am Who Am) is not
contained the concept that he is not in some regard; for some-
thing is limited not because it is, but because it is this or that,
for instance, a stone, a plant, a man.

b. He cannot be limited by another, because he depends
on no other, and has not received his being from another.

c. He could not be limited by himself as he is not the
cause of his existence, but the sufficient reason thereof.

The Infinite Being is most simple, or not compound. Were
he compound, his parts would be either all finite, or infinite, or
one infinite and the others finite. None of these suppositions are
possible, therefore, he is not compound.

1. Several finite things cannot produce an infinite or an
illimitable, as there would always be a first and a last. C^^

2. Many infinite beings are inconceivable; for, if there
were several, they would have to differ from each other by
some perfection. Now from the moment one would have a per-
fection, the other one lacks, the latter would not be infinite.
Therefore, God cannot be a compound of infinite parts.

3. If one is infinite, nothing can be added to it. Finite

64 THE **M0RM0N" doctrine OP DEITY.

parts could not belong to the infinite essence, else they would
communicate their limitations to God.

Therefore, the Infinite Being is not composite, but simple
or spiritual. Therefore, he is not, nor ever was, a man, who is
a composite being.

II.

Above, 1 proved God's immutability from the Bible; now I
prove it from philosophy, or the light of reason.

Mutation or change is the passing from one state into
another. The Infinite Being is not liable to chang;^, as change im-
plies an imperfection in the being susceptible of it, as that being
had not in the previous state what it has in the subsequent, or
vice versa. God having all perfections must be unchangeable.
Therefore, he is not a man grown into a God.

The Necessary Being is such that he could not exist, nor
exist otherwise. He cannot receive his existence, nor lose it. So he
cannot change with regard to his existence; nor can he change
with regard to his mode of existence. His perfections being in-
finite cannot increase; nor can they wane or decrease, else there
would be an imperfection in him, and he would no longer be
infinite, or God. Therefore, God is unchangeable. Therefore, he
never was what we are.

God is pure essence (I Am Who I Am), pure actuality or act.

Change implies potentiality, liability to become what it is not.

As God is infinitely perfect, all potentiality is excluded from
him; in other words, there is no room for growth or more perfec-
tion. Consequently, no possibility of change. Therefore, God was
never without the fullness of the Godhead, consequently, never
a man.

NOR CAN MAN EVER BECOME A GOD.

Man is finite or limited in everything, ever changeable and
changing, ever susceptible of improvement. What is finite cap

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 55

never become infinite. Supposing man grown or improved for bil-
lions of years; after that immense period, he could begin over
again improving for billions of years, and yet ever remain short
of infinite perfection, as no number of finite things can make the
infinite. There is and always shall be a first and a last, to which
could be added more and more. "When a man hath done, then he
shall begin, and when he leaveth off, he shall be at a loss"
(Ecclesiasticus 18:2).

A being cannot be at the same time infinite and finite, neces-
sary and contingent, compound and simple, unchangeable and
changeable, eternal and temporary, omnipotent and weak, actual
being and potentiality, etc., etc.

Now if God were an exalted man, he would have all those
contradictory attributes at the same time, which is absurd.
Therefore, it is an utter impossibility that God should be an
exalted man.

As to man becoming God, the idea is absurd. With far more
reason might we contend that the gnat will develop into a lion,
and the animalcules which we swallow in a sip of water will grow
into gigantic giraffes and colossal elephants, as there is infinitely
less distance or difference between those respective animals than
between the most perfect creature and the Creator, the finite and
the infinite. Bring all the scientists of the world together, the
Darwins, the Huxleys, theTyndalls, thePasteurs, the Kochs, the
Teslas, the Edisons, etc., etc., supply them with the most Ingen-
ious machinery, and the most complicated instruments, and with
unlimited material, let them make, I will not say an imitation sun
or moon, but simply a little worm as we often unconsciously crush
under our feet, or let them produce not the magnificent lily or
rose, but a tiny blade of grass. Before such a ta8k, apparently so
insignificant, those profound mathematicians, naturalists and
chemists, will throw up their hands in utter impotence. Expert
miners cs^ indeed mal^e wines in their laboratories, but will PresU

56 THE "mormon" doctrine of deity.

dent Roosevelt or Emperor William, or other soverei^s. ever give
them an order to manf actare a little bunch of grapes or a few of
the commonest berries?

What frequent accidents are there on our railroads, despite
most careful and most attentive trainmen! Yet a collision never
occurred between the millions of suns, stars and planets that
whirl, rush, tear and bound wildly along their prescribed path-
ways for thousands or millions of years, at the rate of over one
thousand miles a minute (our earth), and three thousand miles
a minute (the planet Arcturus). Notwithstanding the bewilder-
ing speed of their movements, the stars and planets float through
space with such regularity and precision, and along such well
defined paths, deviating neither to the right nor to the left,
that astronomers can foretell to a nicety— to within a minute —
at what point in the heavens they may be found at any future
time, say next month, next year, or even next century. They
can indeed predict transits and eclipses; but suppose astrono-
mers from New Zealand on their way to America to observe
this fall's moon eclipse, meet with an accident in mid-ocean,
would they at once send this wireless telegram to the United
States' star-gazers assembled say at Lick Observatory: "Belated
by leak. Please retard eclipse two hours that we may not miss
it.'' As well might all the telescopemen in the world combined,
attempt to fetch down the rings of Saturn for the construction
of a royal- race track as pretend to control movements of the
heavenly bodies.

The helpless babe of yesterday may indeed rival Mozart,
Hayden and Paderewski, but tomorrow he may rise with lame
hands and pierced ear-drums; and millions of worshipers of the
shattered idol are powerless to restore it to the musical w«rld.
Still Jesus healed the blind, the deaf and the palsied, by a mere
act of his will, even without speaking a word.

"We have this treasure in earthen vessels" (II Cor. 4 : 7).

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 57

"Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord whereas
I am dust and ashes" (Genesis IS : 27). "In the morning man
shall grow up like grass and flourish, in the evening he shall fall,
grow dry and wither" (Psalm 89 : 6). ''Can man be compared
with God, even though he were of perfect knowledge" (Job 22:2).
'*None is good but God alone" (Luke 18 : 19). "Of his greatness
there is no end" (Psalm 144 : 3). "All nations are before him
as if they had no being at all, and are counted to him as nothing
and vanity. To whom then have you likened God, or what
image will you make for him? It is he that sitteth upon the
globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts:
he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth
them out as a tent to dwell in. All flesh is grass, and all the
glory thereof as the flower of the field. The grass is withered,
and the flower is fallen because the wind of the Lord had blown
upon it. Indeed, the people is grass" (Isaiah 40: 17, 18, 22, 6,
7). "He that bringeth the searches of secrets to nothing, that
hath made the judges of the earth as vanity — hath measured
the waters in the hollow of his hand, and weighed the heavens
with his palm? Who hath poised with three fingers the bulk of
the earth, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills- in
a balance" (Isaiah 40:23-12).

An IngersoU might sneer and cry out: Surely Isaias had
no idea of the size of the earth. Even though he did not know
that the globe is such an immense ball, and that the volume of
the sun is one million two hundred thousand times greater than
the earth, and three hundred thousand times its weight, God
who inspired the prophet knew infinitely more about it than our
conceited astronomers.

I fear Mr. B. H. Roberts will be inclined to think God jeal-
ous because he gives man no show for comparison with him.
This would certainly be a less blunder of the Utah man (" I will
not give my glory to another") (Isaiah 42: 8) than his conten-

58 THE

tion, which is a mere echo of Satan's promise in Paradise; "You
shall be as gods." (Genesis 3: 5).

Man is indeed capable of progress, but his forward move-
ment is slow, and in some matters his attainments remain sta-
tionary; for instance, nothing has been added to philosophy
since the days of Aristotle, and nothing to geometry since
Euclid. Both of these geniuses lived over three hundred years
before Christ. Conclude we, then, with the Psalmist: "All my
bones shall say: Lord, who is like to thee? (Psalm 34: 10).

THE UNITY OF GOD.

1. The first chapter of the Bible reveals the supreme fact
that there is One Only and Living God, the Creator and moral
Governor of the universe. As Moses opened the sacred Writ-
ings by proclaiming him, so the Jew in all subsequent gener-
ations, has continued to witness for him, till from the household
of Abraham, faith in the one only living and true God has spread
through Jerusalem, Christianity and Mahometanism well-nigh
over the earth.*

Primeval revelations of God had everywhere become cor-
rupted in the days of Moses, save among the chosen people.
Therefore, the first leaf of the Mosaic record, as Jean Paul
says, has more weight than all the folios of men of science and
philsophers.

While all nations over the earth have developed a religious
tendency which acknowledged a higher than human power in
the universe, Israel is the only one which has risen to the
grandeur of conceiving this power as the One Only Living God.
If we are asked how it was that Abraham possessed not only
the primitive conception of the Divinity, as he had revealed
himself to all mankind, but passed through the denial of all

* "Hours with the Bible," by Geikie, vol. 1, chapters 1, 2.

THE **M0RM0N" doctrine OP DEITY. 59

other gods, to the knowledge of the One God, we are content
to answer, that it was by a special divine revelation*

The record of this divine revelation is to be found in the
Bible: "Hear, Israel: Our God is one Lord." "I alone am, and
there is no other God besides me" (Deut. 6: 4 and 32: 39). "I
am the first and I am the last, and after me there shall be none"
(Isaiah 44: 6; 43: 10.) **I will not give my glory to another"
(Isaiah 42: 8; 45: 5, etc., etc.)

And as Mr. Roborts admits that our conception of God
must be in harmony with the New Testament, it as well as the
Old witnesses continually to One True God. Suffice it to quote:
"One is good, God" (Matthew 19: 17;) *Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God" (Luke 10: 27); "My Father of whom you say
that he is your God" (John 8: 54). Here Christ testified that
the Jews believed in only one God.

"7A6 Lord is a God of all Knowledge" (I Kings 2). ("Mor-
mon" Catechism v. Q. 10 and Q. 11).

*'0f that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the angels
of heaven, but the Father alone'* (Matthew 24: 36).

No one knoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke 10:
22).

Therefore, no one is God but one, the Heavenly Father.

In another form: The All-knowing alone is God. The
Father alone is all-knowing. Therefore the Father alone is
God.*

From these clear statements of the Divine Book it is evi-
dent that all the texts quoted by Mr. Roberts do not bear the

* "Chips from a German Workshop," by Max Muller, vol. 1, pp.
345-372.

t To the exclusion of another or separate divine being, but not to
the denial of the distinct Divine Personalities of the Son and the Holy
Ghost in the One Divine Being.

60 THE "mormon*' DOCTRiNfc OF DEITV.

inference he draws from' them; on the contrary, they directly
make against him, plainly proving the unity of God.

First, then, if God so emphatically declares, both in the
Old and in the New Testament, that there is but one God, has
anyone the right to contradict him and to say that there are
several or many Gods? But Mr. Roberts insists that the Bible
contradicts the Bible; in other words, that God, the author of
the Bible, contradicts himself. To say such a thing is down-
right blasphemy.

The liability to self-contradiction is characteristic of
human frailty. It is incompatible with God's infinite perfec-
tions. Therefore, I most emphatically protest that there is no
real contradiction in the Bible, though here and there may exist
an apparent one.

Let me premise that the name God, Elohim, is applied (1)
to the one true God; (2) to false gods and idols; (3) to represent-
atives of God, such as angels, judges, kings; (4) to the devil, at
least in this phrase: the god of this world.

I beg to observe, first, that whenever the plural gods
occurs in Holy Writ, it is in sense (2) or (3); i.e., it is meant of
false gods or representatives of God; secondly, that plural is
generally put in opposition to the singular Jehovah or Lord,
who is emphatically mentioned as the sovereign of the gods in
every instance, alleged or allegable.*

Now, all these Bible expressions point to the clear infer-

* "There is none like thee among the gods, Lord" (Psalm 85:
8). "Our God is not like their gods" (Deut. 32: 31). "Who is God
besides the Lord" (Psalm 17: 32). "Their gods have no sense" (Baruch
6: 41). **The Lord is terrible over all the Gods: because all the gods
of the gentiles are devils; but the Lord hath made the heavens"
(Psalm 95: 4, 5). "Neither is there any nation so great that hath
gods so nigh them as our God is present to all our petitions" (Deut.
4: 7).

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 81

fiDce that this Sovereign or Supreme God is the only true God.
Consequently, these very texts, instead of proving Mr. Roberts'
contention, plainly disprove it, demonstrating that there is but
one God. 'Thou alone art God" (PsaLn 85: 11).

Two of these texts, for instance, have the significant qual-
ification: Being called gods. A man must not be a lawyer to
know that the fact that not a few quacks and clowns are called
doctors does not make them such. ''Although there be that
are called gods either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods
many and lords many); yet to us there is but one God" (I Cor-
inthians 8: 5, 6). Jesus answered, referring to Psalm 82: 6,
"Is it not written in your law: I said you are Gods? If he called
them gods to whom the word of God was spoken" * * *
(John 10: 34, 35). Neither Christ nor Paul say that they are
or were gods, but simply that they are called gods. Bear with
me for further quoting: "I have said you are gods, and all of
you the sons of the Most High. But you shall die like men*^
etc. (Psalm 82: 6, 7). How unlike the true God, the Immortal
King of ages.

Wherever Elohim occurs in the Bible in sense 1, (meaning
the True God) it is employed with singular verbs and singular
adjectives.

Had the "Mormon" Church leaders known Hebrew, the
original language of the Book of Moses, and nearly the whole
of the Old Testament, they wjuld not have been guilty of the
outrageous blunders perpetrated by the writers of the Pearl of
Great Price and of the Catechism, as appears on pages 24, 25,
26, 27, of the latter book: "They organized and formed (that
is, the Gods,) the heavens and the earth * * * and the
Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon * * * What did the
Gods do on the second day? etc. The Gods said, Let there be
light ♦ * * and they [the Gods] comprehended the lights for it
was bright.*' (Whoever heard of a dark light? But even had

62 THE ''mormon" doctrine of deity.

the light lacked brightness, would the gods have been power-
less to comprehend it?) The original had singular verbs
in all these sentences and, unlike our imperfect English, which
has the same form in the singular and in the plural, the Hebrew,
the Greek, the Latin, the Syriac, etc., have different terminations
in the plural from the singular.

Had Joseph Smith and his partners not been ignorant of
those ancient languages in which were written the original text
and the oldest versions of the Bible, their revelations would, at
least in reference to the Creator have tallied with the revela-
tions of Moses.

One of the strongest and clearest proofs of the unity of
God, is God's solemn revelation of himself as Jehovah, prefaced
by the emphatic statement: '^I am Who Am. Thou shalt say to
the sons of Israel: I Am sent me to you, (that is: The one who
said, I Am Who Am, sent me to you)'* (Exodu.3 3:14). "Jehovah,
the God of your fathers — I am Jehovah" (Exodus 6:2).

If there ever was an occasion en which God should have
disclosed his unity or his plurality, it was certainly then when
Moses ventured to demand the credentials of his mission. God
used singular verbs whenever referring to himself. He said: /
am, not we are. He calls himself by the singular noun Jehovah,
which, unlike the plural Elohim, is applied only to the one true
God. This name Jehovah occurs one hundred and sixty times in
Genesis alone.*

II. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one and the
same identical Divine Essence or Being.

A. "I and the Father are one" (John 10-30). Christ as-
serts his physical, not merely moral, unity with the Father.

"My sheep hear my voice * * * and I give them ever-

l *J. Corluy S. J. '* Spidlegium/' Volume 1. Com. 2. See also
Smith's Bible Dictionary, word God.

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 63

lasting life; and they shall not perish forever, and no man shall
pluck them out of my hand"

The following argument by which Christ . proves that no
man shall plack his sheep from his hand, proves his consnbstan-
tiality, or the unity of his nature or essence with his Father's:

My Father who gave me the sheep is greater than all men or
creatures, (v. 29) and therefore no one can snatch the sheep or
aught else from his hand. (Supreme or almighty power is here
predicated of the Father).

Now, I and the Father are one (thing, one being) v. 30.
(Therefore, no one can snatch the sheep or av^ht else from my
hand,)

To perceive the full meaning and strength of Jesus' argu-
ment, one must read and understand the original text of St.
John's Gospel, that is, the Greek; or the Latin translation: Ego
et Pater unum sumus.

If Christ had meant one in mind or one morally and not sv^
staviially, he would have used the masculine gender, Greek eis,
(unus) — and not the neuter en, (uvum) — as he did. No better
interpreters of our Lord's meaning can be found than his own
hearers. Had he simply declared his moral union with the
Father, the Jews would not have taken up stones in protest
against his making himself God, and asserting his identity with
the Father. Far from retracting his statement or correcting
the Jews' impression, Jesus insists that as he is the Son of God,
he has far more right to declare himself God than the Scripture
had to call mere human judges gods, and he corroborates his
affirmation of his physical unity with his Father by saying: *The
Father is in me, and I am in the Father," which evidently sig-
nifies the same as verse 30: I and the Father are one and the
same individual being, the One God.

The 'preceding argument is reinforced by John 14, 8-11:
"Philip saith to him: Lord, show us the Father, * * * Jesus

64 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

saith: So long a time have I been with you and thou bast not
known me. Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How
say est thou: 5how us the Father. Do you not believe that /
am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak
I speak not of myself. But the Father who abidetk in me, he doth
the warks. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father
is in me. What things soever the Father doth, these the Son
also doth likewise (John 5:19).

These words are a clear assertion of the physical unity of
the Son and the Father. It is plain from the context that
Christ means more than a physical resemblance, no matter how
complete, between him and his Father. Of mere resemblance
and moral union could never be said that one is the other, and
that the words uttered by one are actually spoken by the other.

To see the Son and the Father at the same time in the Son,
the Son and the Father must be numerically one Being. Now
Christ says: He that seeth me seeth the Father." Therefore,
he and the Father are numerically one Being.

Again, if the speech and the acts of the Son are physically
the words and the works of the Father, the Son and the Father
are physically one; indivisible, inseparably one principle of ac-
tion, therefore, one Being. Now Christ tells us that his words
and works are physically the words and works of his Father.
Therefore, the Son and the Father are one indivisible, insepar-
able principle, and therefore identical Being: Let no one object:
Is not the word and the deed of the agent, the word and the
deed of his master or employer? Christ is more than his
Father's agent. An agent could indeed say that his utterances
and his actions are dictated or prompted by his master, but he
could never say what Christ said : The words I utter are actually,
physically spoken by my Father while I speak them; and the
works I perform are actually, physically, performed by my
Father. Is the Son, then, like the phonograph or the machine.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 65

the iDstrument of the Father? Nay, he is more than that.
Being together with his Father, the one equally intelligent and
equally efficient principle of action, the words and works are
simultaneously both the Son's and the Father's.

There remains to prove that the Holy Ghost is inseparably
one with the Father and the Son. There are three who give testi-
mony in heaven, and these three are one (1 John 5:8).

As Christ proved his identity and unity with the Father by
texts quoted: *TAc words that I speak I speak not of myself. But
the Father who abideth in me he doth the works" so he now shows
his unity with the Holy Ghost by almost the selfsame sentences:
"When the Spirit of Truth will have come, he will teach you all
truth; for he will not speak oj himself, but he will speak whatever
he will hear, and will announce to you the things to come. He
will glorify me, because he will receive of mine and announce to
you: whatever the Father hath are mine,* Therefore I said: be-
cause he will receive of mine and announce it to you" (John
16:13-15).

That the Holy Ghost is one with the Son, or Jesus, is proved
also by the fact that the Christian baptism is indiscriminately
called the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism in or with the
Holy Ghost and the Baptism of or in Jesus: "He [Christ] shall
baptize in the Holy Ghost and fire" (that is the Holy Ghost
acting as purifying fire) (Matthew 3:11); "have you received the
Holy Ghost? We have not so much as heard whether there be a
Holy Ghost.*' He said: "/n what then [in whose name then] were
you baptized?" Who said : "In John's baptism * * * Having

* In the Old Testament, the foreknowledge of future events was
ever spoken of as an incommunicable attribute of Jehovah (Isaiah
41:22, 28; 44:7; 45:11; Daniel 2:22, 47; 13; 42, etc.) As whatever
the Father hath is the Son's, therefore, also, the knowledge of the
future.

66 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

heard these things they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus'* (Acts 9:2, 5). All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus'^
(Romans 6:3).

B. Although the systematic doctrine of the Blessed
Trinity, that i?, of three Divine Persons (not three Grods) in
one God, is a gradual development in the Church, nevertheless
the distinction of the human and divine natures in Christ is
found in the writings of St. Ignatius, disciple of the Apostle
St. John, and Bishop of Antioch, who, because of his faith,
was devoured by lions by order of Trajan, A. D. 107. Fifty
and sixty years later, different Fathers, among whom TertuUian
("Adv. Marc" IV. 25, and "Adv. Wax." 2), Athenagoras ("Leg"
10: 24, 44), and Clement of Alexandria ("Strom" III: 12)
are the most famous, taught there are three Divine Persons
in one God; that these three, the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost, are equal to each other and are one in substance.*

III. Pagan Witness to the Unity of the Christian's God.

As the Roman historian Tacitus, in his account of the Jews,
wrote: "The Jews have no notion of any more than one Divine
Being, and that known only to the mind." Other pagans bore

* The manifestation of the three Divine Persons at our Lord's
baptism could be interpreted as if there were three distinct beings in
God, or three Gods, if such interpretation were not precluded by
God's emphatic revelation of his Divine Unity. There was, on that
memorable occasion, a twofold divine witnessing to Christ as Son of
God come in the flesh to redeem mankind. In order to find in that
event anything in support of the "Mormon" tenets, there should have
appeared above the Son two glorious exalted men both pointing to
him; whereas, only a voice was heard, and a dove was seen. Nor can
we argue from the voice that the Father must have a mouth, and
therefore a body; with greater reason might we maintain that the
Holy Ghost is a pigeon, as a dove was visible; whereas, the organ of
the voice was not.

THE "mormon'' doctrine OF DEITY. 67

similar testimony concerning the unity of God. In his letter to
the Emperor Trajan, (A. D. 98-117) Pliny governor of Pontus,
said among other things: "They [the Christians] assemble on
certain days before sunrise to sing hymns of praise to Christ,
their God. ♦ * They submit to torture and death rather than
invoke the gods."

And Celsus, the forerunner of our modern infidels, thus
slandered the early Christians: "Confessing that these are
worthy of their God, they desire to convert but fools, and vulgar
and stupid and slavish women and boys."

One more. Caecilius wrote: **What monstrous notions
♦ * ♦ they [the Christians] fabricate that that God of theirs,
whom they can neither show nor see, should be inquiring
diligently into the characters, the acts, nay the words and secret
thoughts of all men! ♦ ♦ * Most of you are in want, cold,
toil, hunger, and your God suffers it.

CHAPTER III.

A REJOINDER TO REV. C. VAN DBR DONCKT'S REPLY.

I have read with great interest and I trust with due care
the Rev. C. Van Der Donckt's Reply to my discourse on **Mor-
mon Doctrine of Deity." With regard to his Reply in general,
I observe three things: first, the Reverend gentleman labors
with some pains to demonstrate that ''Mormon" views of Deity
with respect to the form and nature of God are at variance
with the Catholic and even the orthodox Protestant views on
that subJ3Ct; second, the **Mormon'' views of Deity are in con-
flict with the accepted Christian philosophy; third, that
'*Mormon" doctrines stand in sharp contrast to both Catholic
and Protestant ideas repecting the unity of God. All this is
easily proved; and would have been conceded cheerfully without
proofs. "Mormons" not only admit the variances but glory in
them. The foregoing, however, is not the issue between Mr.
Van Der Donckt and myself. After the variances referred to
are admitted, these questions remain: Which is most in agree-
ment with what God has revealed concerning his form and
nature, **Mormon" or orthodox Christian doctrine? Which is
most in harmony with sound reason and the scriptures, -"Mor-
mon*' doctrine, or the commonly accepted Christian philosophy?
Which in their teaching presents the true doctrine of God's
unity, "Mormons" or orthodox Christians? These are! the
issues; and so far as the Reverend gentleman has maintained

THE *'mORMON*' doctrine OF DEITY. 69

the orthodox Christian doctrine against the ^'Mormon" doctrine,
I undertake to controvert his arguments.

1.

THE FORM OF GOD.

Following the order of my treatise, the gentleman first
deals with the form of God. His first premise is that *'God is
a Spirity^ quoting the words of the Savior (John 4: 24;) and
Paul's words, "The Lord is a spirit," (II Cor. 3: 17.) He then
argues that a spirit is different from a man, and quotes the
remark of Jesus to his disciples, when he appeared to them
after his resurrection: **A spirit hath not fiesh and bones
as ye see me have" (Luke 24: 37-39). Also the words of Jesus
to Peter, 'Tlesh and blood hath not revealed it [that is, that
Jesus is the Christ] unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven."
(Matt. 16: 17.) The gentleman in all this sees a striking
contrast between men, jtesh and blood, and the Father; which
'"conveys the sense that God hath not fiesh and blood like man,
but is a spirit."

That God is a spirit Mr. V. holds is proved also from his
being called ''invisible" in the Bible; and from this premise
argues: ''All material beings are visible. Absolutely invisible
beings are immaterial, or bodiless:" and therefore, to help the
gentleman out a little, not like man in form.

With reference to the passage — 'Ftesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven," and
the Reverend gentleman's remarks thereon, I wish to say, in
passing, that the antithesis between man and God in the passage
extends merely to the fact that the source of Peter's revelation
was God, not man; and is no attempt at defining a difference
between the nature of God and the nature of man. Here also
I may say that the Latter-day Saints do not hold that God is a
personage of flesh and blood, but a personage of flesh and bone.

70 THE "mormqn" doctrine op deity.

inhabited by a spirit, just as Jesus was after his resurrection.
Joseph Smith taught concerning the resurrection that "all
[men] will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their
bodies, and not blood.^^* Again, in speaking of the general assem-
bly and church of the first born in heaven (Heb. 12: 23), he said:
'Tlesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened
by the Spirit of God, can."t So that it must be remembered
throughout this discussion that the Latter-day Saints do not
believe that God is a personage of flesh and blood; but a
personage of flesh and bone and spirit, united.

I would remind the reader, also, that while Jesus said,
''God is a spirit," and that a spirit ''hath noc flesh and bone as
ye see me have," he nowhere says that a spirit is immaterial or
not substance. That is a conclusion drawn by the theologians
from the false philosophy of the ancient pagans.

Bat let us examine these premises and arguments of Mr.
Van DerDonckt, more in detail. The inspired apostle says: "'Our
God 18 a consuming fire*' (Heb. 12:29). "Now," to use the
words of Mr. V., "although we must believe whatever God
reveals to us upon one single word of his, just as flrmly as
upon a thousand; nevertheless, 1 will add" that Moses, who
splemnly received the word from God which he delivered unto
Israel, also says, "TAe Lord thy God is a consuming fire**
(Exod. 4:24). Is Mr. V. ready to believe on these solemn
assertions of scripture— hence of the Lord — that God is a flre,
and therefore that fire is God? Or would he insist upon
interpreting these passages by others, and by reason? Would
he not want to quote Moses again where he says, "Thy God is

* Discourse delivered at Nauvoo, March 20, 1842. Mill, Star,
Vol. xix, p. 213.

t Discourse delivered at Nauvoo, Oct. 9, 1843. MiU, Star, Vol.
xxii, p. 231.

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 71

* * * a« a consuming fire" (Ex. 9: 3), and accept this as a
reasonable interpretation of the passage stating so definitely
that "God is a fire"?

Again, "God is light" (I John 1: 5). Would Mr. V. from
that definition of God believe and teach that God is light, mere
cosmic light? Or would he find an interpretation, or explana-
tion necessary? And still again, "God is love" (I John 4:
7, 16). Love is an attribute of mind, of spirit; must one
conclude then from this definition that God is a mere attribute
of mind? These reflections will demonstrate that these deflni-
tions of God, so far as they are such, together with the one
with which Mr. V. commences his argument, "God is a Spirit,"
need defining. He endeavors to anticipate the "Mormon" an-
swer to this argument by saying:

I am well aware that the Latter-day Saints interpret those texts
as meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what nearly the whole of
mankind, Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans, have believed for ages,
cannot be upset by the gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator
of this last century.

At this point I will not appeal to or quote the "gratuitous
assertions of a religious innovator of this last century" — mean-
ing Joseph Smith. There is no need of that. If I were an
unbeliever in the true Deity of Christ, I might take up the
gentleman's argument in this way: You say God is a spirit, and
hence bodiless, immaterial? His answer must be, "Yes." But
Jesus says, "a spirit hath not fiesh and bones as ye see me have"
— hence Jesus is not God, because he is a personage of fiesh
and bone, in the form of man — not bodiless or immaterial.
This, of course, is not my point. I merely refer to it in the
beaten way of good fellowship,, and by way of caution to my
Catholic friend, who, I am sure, in his way, is as anxious to
maintain the true Deity of the Nazarene as I am; but his method

72 THE **M0RM0N'* doctrine OP DEITY.

of handliDg the text, ''God is a spirit/' might lead him into ser-
ious difSculty in upholding the truth that Jesus was and is true
Deity, if in argument with an infidel.

But now for the "Mormon" exposition of the text. Is
Jesus Christ God? Was he God as he stood there among his
disciples in his glorious and, to use Mr. V.'s own word,
"sacred," resurrected body? There is but one answer that the
Reverend Catholic gentleman or any orthodox Protestant can
give, and that is in the affirmative — "yes, Jesus is God."' But
''God is a spirit!" True, he is; but Jesus is a spirit inside a
body— inside an immortal, indestructible body of flesh and bone;
therefore, if Jesus is God, and God is a spirit, he is an embodied
spirit, just as the Latter-day Saints teach.

Now let it be understood that Latter-day Saints are not so
foolish as to believe that so much phosphate, lime, carbon,
hydrogen, and oxygen as may compose the body of a perfected
man, is God. They recognize the fact that the body without
the spirit i? dead, being alone; but the spirit having through
natural processes gathered to itself a body, and that body
having been purified by the power of God — who has promised
in holy scripture that he will "change our vile body, that it
may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the
working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto
himself" (Phil. 3: 20, 21)— when this is done, even the body
takes upon it some of the divine nature. It indeed becomes
"sacred," and something more than "sacred" — it becomes incor-
porated with and forever united to, a spirit that is divine, and
henceforth becomes an integral part of God. Of which process,
of a divine spirit taking on a body of flesh and bone, Jesus
Christ is the most perfect example.

* "His acts proved his Deity; Jesus is Jehovah, and therefore
we sing unto him as the Lord." "Treasury of David'' (Spurgeon).
Vol. iv, p. 371.

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 73

At this point, I shall pass for the present a few items that
stand next in order in Mr. Van Der Donckt's argument, that
I may consider some statements and arguments of his made
further on in the "Reply/' because they are immediately related
to what has just been said. Mr. V. holds that it is proved by
Holy Writ that "angels as well as God are bodiless beings."
After quoting passages of scripture in support of this state-
ment, he then adds: "Could plainer words be found to teach
that angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies?
Now, the Creator is certainly more perefct than his creatures,
and pure minds are more perfect than minds united to bodies*
(men)." In support of which be quotes the following: "The
corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly hab-
itation presseth down the mind" (Wisdom 9: 15)t; and Paul's
saying, "who shall deliver me from this body of death ?$" (Rom.
6: 24). Iherefore the Creator is a pure spirit,

I fear Mr. V. in these statements has run into more diffi-
culty. Let us see. According to his doctrine, "Angels as well
as God are bodiless beings." "Angels, both good and bad, are
spirits, devoid of bodies. The Creator is more perfect than his
creatures, and pure minds [minds separated from bodies] are
more perfect than minds united to bodies, ♦ * * There-
fore the Creator is a pure spirit." But where does this leave
Jesus?

Was and is Jesus God— true Deity?

Yes.

But Jesus is a spirit and body united into one glorious

* Italics are mine.

t This is a book received by the Catholic Church on alleged
apostolical tradition, but not found in the Hebrew Bible nor Protes-
tant versions of the Bible.

t Quoted thus by Mr. V. In bothXatholic and Protestant Bibles
it stands: "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
5

74 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

personage. His mind was and is now united to and dwelling in
a body. Our Catholic friend says, ''pure minds [i. e. minds not
united to bodies] are more perfect than minds united to
bodies." He also says, "Angels, both good and bad, are spirits
(i. e. minds) devoid of bodies." Therefore, it must follow from
his premises and argument that angels are superior to Jesus
since his spirit is united to a body, while they are minds not
united to bodies! I will not press the point, that the same
conclusions'could be drawn from' his premises and argument with
reference even to bad spirits, whom he says are bodiless, and
hence, upon his theory, superior to minds or spirits united to bod-
ies, for that would be ungenerous upon my part, and would lay
upon his faulty argument the imputation of awful blasphemy,
which I am sure was not intended and would be as revolting to
him as it would be to myself. Mr. V., I am sure, would contend
as earnestly as I would that Jesus is superior to the angels,
though it is perfectly clear that he is a spirit united to a body.
"When he had by himself purged our sins, [Jesus] sat down on
the right hand of the majesty on high; being made so much
better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a
more excellent name than they. ♦ ♦ ♦ And again, when he
bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let all
the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, who
maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of flre. BtU
unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, God, is for ever and
ever'' (Heb. 1: 3-8). In this passage the superiority of Jesus
over the angels is manifested in four ways: flrst, by the direct
affirmation of God, that he was made "better" than the angels;
second, that by inheritance he obtained a more exalted name;
third, that the angels are commanded to worship him; fourth,
God, the Father, addressing Jesus, said, "Thy throne, God, is
for ever and ever." In this passage the Father directly ad-
dresses Jesus by the title "God." And as God is exalted abov«

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 75

all angels, Jesus must be superior to angels, for he is "God/'
if we may believe the words of the Father— whom to disbelieve
would be blasphemy.

Mr. Van Der Donckt admits in his argument,'of course, that
Jesus is God; and also admits the persistence of him in the
physical condition in which he left the earth with his resur-
rected body. For in explaining the scripture passage about
seeing God "face to face/' he remarks:

The first and chief element of the happiness of heaven will con-
sist in the beatific vision; that is, in seeing God face to face, un-
veiled, as he really is. The "face to face," however, is literally true
only of our blessed Savior, who ascended into heaven with his sacred
body. Otherwise, as God is a spirit, he has no body, and, conse-
quently, no face.

From this it is clear that, in the mind of the Reverend gen-
tleman, Jesus not only ascended into heaven with his "sacred
body/' but now dwells there spirit and body united; and the
blessed, who shall inherit heaven will see him there literally
face to face."* Otherwise than this "face to face" view of
Jesus — ^according to Mr. V. — we shall only see God, since he is
a spirit, "with the spiritual eye; with the soul's intellectual per-
ception, elevated by a supernatural influx from God!" This
admission with reference to Jesus and his existence as an im-
mortal personage of flesh and bone, and our literal view of him

* In an article for the Improvement Era, on the Doctrines and
Claims of the Catholic Church, Bishop Scanlan, of Salt Lake City, also
said of the Divinity of Christ; "The Catholic Church teaches that
Jesus Christ is not a mere elect child or special creation of God, or in
any sense or manner a creature, but that he is the eternal and only
Son of God, God of God, Light of Light; the expression of the Eternal
Father, with whom he is one in nature and substance, and to whom
he is equal in all divine attributes, power and glory." — Improvement
Era, vol. i, p. 14.

76 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

in heaven "face to face/' dra^s with it some consequences
which my Catholic friend evidently overlooked. In the creed
usually named after St. Athanasius, it is said: *'Such as the
Father is, such is the Son," I take it that this, in the view
of those who accept the Athanasian creed, has reference to the
"substance of the Father/' as well as to other things pertaining
to him; for, according to that creed, the "substance" of the
Father and Son is one and undivided. "We worship one God
in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity," says the creed; "neither con-
founding the persons nor dividing the substance." It must be,
therefore, according to Mr. V.'s creed, that all the "substance"
of God there is, is in Jesus Christ, as well as the attributes of
God. The terms of the creed forbid us believing that part of
the "substance" of God was enclosed in the flesh and bone body
of Jesus, and the remainder existed outside of that body; for
that would be dividing the "substance" of God, a thing the
Athanasian creed forbids: therefore, all the "substance" of
God inhabits the body of Jesus Christ, and he is wholly God. In
this view of the subject, there is no God except the Deity en-
closed in the flesh and body of Jesus Christ. But that would
place our Catholic friend — after all he has said about God being
a spirit, and about the superiority of pure minds (i. e. spirits not
united to bodies) over minds united to bodies — under the
necessity of accepting as God, the Supreme, the Almighty, a
personage that is a spirit and body united in one glorious
personage, and in form like man — a thing most abhorrent to
our friend's principles.

On the other hand, if it be contended that besides the Son
of God, Jesus, a personage of flesh and bone and spirit, there
exists God, a spirit, then there is likely to arise again the con-
ception of the "substance" being divided, and the existence of
two individual Gods instead of one. The one a spirit unem-
bodied, and the other a spirit enclosed in a body of flesh and

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 77

bone— the glorified, exalted Man, Christ. This danger is also in-
creased by the part of the creed now being considered, viz., "Such
as the Father is, such is the Son;" for it must follow, if this be
true that such as the Son is, such is the Father also. And this,
must hold with reference to God, wholly; to his substance,
essence, personality, form, as well as to all attributes possessed,
or else it is not true at all. And if true, since we know that
Jesus is an immortal being of flesh and bone and spirit united
into one glorious personage (and Mr. V. admits that, and also
that the blessed in heaven shall see him as such a personage,
literally *'face to face"), then God the Father must be the same,
a personage of flesh and bone and spirit united — a thing most
abhorrent to Mr. V's principles.

At this point, I must complain of the gentleman's argument
a little. However able and fair his article may be con-
sidered on the whole, I think, on the question of the **form
of God," I am justifled in charging that he has not dealt
at all with my strong scripture proofs relative to that matter.
He makes but the very slightest reference to the passage:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likenesd. * * ^ So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God created he him; male and female created he them
(Genesis 1: 26, 27).

And he considered nowhere the very definite passage:

'*God * * hath in these last days spoken anto us by his Son.
* * * who, being the brightness of his glory and the express image
of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when
he hath by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high (Heb. 1: 3).

"Now," to use the solemn words of the Reverend gentleman
himself, "we must believe whatever God reveals to us upon one
single word of his, just as firmly as upon a thousand" — I shall

78 THE **MORMON*' DOCTRINE OP DEITY.

hold that it was incumbent upon Mr. V. to deal with these
passages, and set forth in what way they are to be understood,
if 710^ to be understood as they read."* I can think of no
language that could express the truth more forcibly, that man
was created in the form of God and, therefore, that God in
form is like man, than the language of these two passages.
When the word of God says: *'God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him; and then again, in
speaking of Jesus, who certainly bore all the semblance, figure
and stature of a man — who was a man — when the divine Spirit,
I say, in speaking of him, says that he was the express image
of God's person — I shall despair of human language expressing
any fact whatsoever, if this language does not say that in form
God and man are alike. And what the word of God in plain-
ness teaches — so plain that he who ''runs may read," so plain
that "wayfaring men though fools need not err therein" — **is
not to be set aside by the gratuitous assertions" of "religious
innovators" of early Christian centuries who corrupted the
plain meaning of God's word by their vain philosophies, and
oppositions of science, falsely so called. Mr. Van Der Donckt

* The meaning of this language from the 26th verse of the first
chapter of Genesis is made perfectly clear when compared with the
third verse of the 5th chapter of Genesis where it is written: "And
Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own
likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." What do these
words imply but that Seth was like his father in features and
also doubtless in intellectual and moral qualities? And if when it is
said Adam begat a son in his "own likeness, after his image,*' it
simply means that Seth in form and features and intellectual and
moral qualities was like his father — then there can be no other
conclusion formed upon the passage that says God created man in his
own image and likeness than that man, in a general way, in form
and feature and intellectual and moral qualities was like God.

THE **M0RM0N" DOCTRINB OP DEITY. 79

makes no reference to this plain passage in Hebrews 1:3; and
I am under the necessity of thinking that in respect of
this passage and the one in Genesis, he had no means at his *
command by which he could satisfactorily explain away their
force. They stand, therefore, with their strength unimpaired,
in proof of the doctrines taught in the discourse at which Mr
V. leveled his Reply.

Of God Being Invisible.

Mr. Van Der Donckt thinks he sees further proof of God's
being a "Spirit,", and therefore immaterial or bodiless, in the
fact that he is spoken of in the Bible as being ^'invisible/'
Moses "was strong as seeing him that is invisible," (Heb. 11: 27;)
"No man hath seen God at any time" (I John 4: 12;) "The
King of kings — whom no man hath seen nor can see," (I Tim.
6: 16); are the passages he relies upon for the proof of his
contention.

Of course, Mr. V. is aware of the fact — for he mentions
it — that these passages are confronted with the explicit state-
ment of scripture that God has been seen by men. Moses saw
him. At one stage of his experience, the great Hebrew
prophet was told that he could not see God's face; "for," said
the Lord, "there shall no man see me and live." But even at
that time, Moses was placed in a cleft of the rock, "and thou
shalt see my back parts," said the Lord to him; ''but my face
shall not be seen" (Exodus 23: 18-23). On another occasion,
Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of
Israel, saw God.

And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as
it were a paved work of saphire stone, and as it were the body of
heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children
of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and
drink (Ex. 24: 9-11).

80 THE **M0RM0N'* DOCTRINfi OP DBltY.

Isaiah saw him: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne,
high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple." At the
'same time the seraphims proclaimed his holiness, saying, "Holy,
holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his
glory." Then said Isaiah: "Woe is me! for I am undone; because
I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people
of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of
hosts" (Isaiah 6: 1-5).

To harmonize these apparitions of God to men with his
theory of the invisibility of God, Mr. V. appeals to the writings
of some of the Christian fathers, and Cardinal Newman, from
whose teachings he concludes that God the Father is called
"invisible" because "he never appeared to bodily eyes; whereas
the Son manifested himself as an angel, and as a man after
his incarnation. ♦ * ♦ Whenever the Eternal Son of God,
or angels at God's behest, showed themselves to man, they
became visible only through a body, or a material garb assumed
for the ocedsionr

Surely Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, the great English
Cardinal of the Roman church, and Mr. V. are in sore straits
when they must needs take refuge in the belief of such jugglery
with matter as this, in order to reconcile apparently confiicting
scriptures. And what a shuffling off and on of material garbs
there must have been, as from time to time hosts of angels and
spirits appeared unto men!

It is but the materialization of the spiritualist mediums on
a little larger scale. But there is a better way of harmonizing
the seeming contradictions; and better authority for the conclu-
sion to be reached than the Christian fathers and Cardinal New-
man. I mean the scriptures themselves.

Take this expression of the scripture, "No man hath seen
God at any time" (I John 4: 12). Standing alone, it seems
emphatic and conclusive. And in the same connection this

THE "mormon** doctrine OF DEITY. 81

also, from the testimony of John: ''No man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him" (St. John 1: 18). But consider
these texts in connetion with what the Master himself said on
the same subject: "It is written in the prophets, And they shall
be all taught of God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard,
and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that
any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath
seen the Father'^ (St. John 6: 45, 46). Now we have the key
to the matter. '*No man hath seen God at any time, save
[except] he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. ^^ If any
one shall contend that this '%e which is of God'* has reference
to Jesus only, the complete answer to that will be found in the
account of the Martyr Stephen's glorious view of the Father and
the Son together and at one time: '*6ut he [Stephen] being
full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and
saw the glory oj Gody and Jesus standing on the right hand oj
God, and said. Behold, / see the heavens opened, and the ton of
Man standing on the right hand of God'' (Acts 7:55-6). Undoubt-
edly, for reasons that are wise, God the Father has been "invis-
ible" to men except under very special conditions; for the most
part the "Only Begotten hath declared him," and stood as his
representative; and in the absence of those special conditions,
no man hath seen God the Father; no man in the absence of
these conditions can see his face and live. He must be ''of God,"
as Stephen was, then he may see God, even the Father, as that
martyr evidently did. Here, too, may be cited a passage from
one of the revelations of the Lord to Joseph the Prophet, which
throws more light upon the subject. Speaking of the Higher
or Melchisedek Priesthood, the Lord says:

This greater Priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the
key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the knowledge of God;
therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest;

82 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

and withoat the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the Priest-
hood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
for withovi this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and
liv^ (Doc. and Gov. sec. 84: 19-22).

God, then, in the Bible, is called ''invisible," not because
he is absolutely so by reason of his nature, because he is ''im-
material or bodiless;" but because he is not to be seen by men
except under very special conditions. The special conditions
complied with, however, certain holy men have seen God; the
Father, and have borne witness of the fact. Of course, it fol-
lows that the "invisibility" of God as here set forth does not
carry with it the idea that God is immaterial or bodiless; nor
would it follow that God is immaterial, even if absolutely in-
visible to human eyes in our present existence. Mr. V. advances
a strange doctrine when he says that "All material beings are
visible. Absolutely invisible Jbeings are immaterial or bodiless."
I take it that his assertion is equivalent to saying that all ma-
terial things are visible; and that absolutely invisible things, like
"invisible beings," are immaterial or bodiless. Is that true? Is the
atmosphere visible? No. But it is material. "It is composed of
atoms of matter whose weight is such that the pressure upon
every square inch amounts to fifteen pounds; and upon the body
of an ordinary- sized man some fourteen tons; but notwithstanding
this, man could not construct a microscope sufficiently power-
ful to render these atoms visible."* What of the ether extend-
ing throughout the universe, in which millions of suns and their
attendant planets move as motes in a sunbeam; is that visible?
No; but it is material nevertheless. So with many things that,
notwithstanding they are absolutely invisible, are material for
all that, and have some of the qualities in common with grosser
matter. We know but little of substances, as yet; less of their

♦ Samuel Kinns' "Harmony of the Bible and Science," p. 338.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 83

essence; bat since there are many material substances
absolutely invisible to us, is it unreasonable to believe tbat
there are also beings consisting of substances more refined, pure
and glorious than the material that is visible to our limited
and imperfect vision? — ^beings invisible to us, unless our eyes
be quickened by the power of God, yet material, and having
form, and limitations and relations to other beings and things;
and also possessed of many other qualities common to matter.
In view of these facts, is not Mr. Van Der Donckt a little reck-
less, and too dogmatic, in stating the datum from which he
argues for the absolute invisibility of God, and hence also his
supposed immateriality, or bodiless state?

Mr. Van Der Donckt argues that angels and spirits are
also bodiless or immaterial. Was it a bodiless or immaterial
angel that wrestled with Jacob until the breaking of the day;
and who, when he could not prevail against the patriarch,
touched the sinew of his thigh that it forthwith shrank? (Gen.
32: 23-32). Were they immaterial or bodiless angels who
called at the tent-home of the patriarch Abraham, on the plains
of Mamre, for whom Sarah baked cakes, and Abraham's servant
prepared a roast of veal; and, when all things were made
ready, the patriarch stood by, and the three heavenly person-
ages — one of them is called "the Lord" — "did eat" (Gen. 18) —
were they immaterial or bodiless? Perhaps the Reverend gen-
tleman will say, however, that these cases, and a score of
others of similar nature that might be quoted, are answered by
his statement — made on the authority of some Christian
fathers and Cardinal Newman — that when angels "showed
themselves to man they became visible [hence materialized,
according to my friend's theory of visible and invisible beings]
only through a body, or material garb assumed for the occa-
sion f For which theory, as whimsical as it is nonsensical, I
venture to tell the Reverend gentleman there is no warrant of

84 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

divine anthority; nothing but the assumptions and speculations
of churchmen seekiug to harmonize Christian doctrine with the
vain speculations of old pagan philosophers. I know nothing
that equals this theory for absurdity, except it be the idea of
Epicurus, who, after affirming that the gods were of human
form, explained — "Yet that form is not body (i. e. material), but
something like body; nor does it contain any blood, but some-
tliing like blood T* Or may I say that Mr. Van Der Donckt's
absurdity is really equalled by that of Heracleitus, who taught
that the sun was extinguished every evening and made new
every morning?

As for the rest of Mr. V*s theory of immateriality and
invisibility of angels and spirits, I shall trust to what I have
said on these subjects in dealing with the invisibility of God,
to be a sufficient answer.

Of Anthropomorphism and understanding the Bible Literally.

I must say a word upon Mr. V's remarks respecting the
plain anthropomorphism of the Bible, and the matter of under-
standing that sacred book literally. With reference to the first
he says:

All men after the example of the inspired writings, make fre-
quent use of the figure called anthropomotphism, attributing to the
Deity a human body, human members, human passions, etc., and that
is done, not to imply that God is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but
simply to make spiritual thmgs or certain truths more intelligible to
man.

I would like to know upon what authority Mr. V. adjudges
the "inspired writings" not to imply that God is really possessed
of form, limbs, passions, etc., after attributing them to him in
the clearest manner. The "inspired writings" plainly and most

Tuscul. Dispt, Cicero, p. 227 (Younge's translation).

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 85

forcibly attribute to Deity a form like man's, with limbs, organs,
etc., but the Bible does not teach that this ascription of form,
limbs, organs and passions to God, is unreal, and "simply to
make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to
man." On the contrary, the Bible emphasizes the doctrine of
anthropomorphism by declaring in its very first chapter that
man was created in the image of God: "So God created man
in his own image, in the image of God created he him." The
explanation is offered that it was necessary to attribute human
form, members and passions, to God, in order to make spiritual
things intelligible to man; but what is the reason for ascribing
the divine Jorm to man, as in the -passage just quoted ? Was
that done to make human beings or certain truths more intelli-
gible to God ? Or was it placed in the word of God because it
is simply true ?

The truth that God in form is like man is further empha-
sized by the fact that Jesus is declared to have been in "the ex-
press image" of the Father's person (Heb. 1:3); and until Mr.
V. or some other person of his school of thought, can prove
very clearly that the word of God supports his theory of the
unreality of the Bible's ascription of form, organs, proportions,
passions and feelings, to God and other heavenly beings, the
truth that God in form is like man will stand secure on the
foundation of the revelations it has pleased God to give of his
own being and nature. *

* Dean Mansel administers a scathing reproof to the German
philosophers Kant and Fichte (and also to Professor Jowett in his note
xxii in Lecture 1.) for what he calls "that morbid terror of what they
are pleased to call anthropomorphism, which poisons the speculation of
so many modern philosophers, when they attempt to be wise above
what is written, and seek for a metaphysical exposition of God's
nature and attributes." These philosophers, while holding in abhor-
rence the idea that God has a form such as man's — or any form whatso-

86 THE "mormon^ DOCTRlNB OP DEITY.

Bat the stran^^est part of the Reverend {^ntleman's con-
tention on the matter now in hand is that the Latter-day Saints
understand the anthropormorphic expressions in the scriptnres

ever — parts, organs, affections, sympathies, passions or any attributes
seen in man's spirit, are, nevertheless, under the necessity of repre-
senting God as conscious, as knowing, as determining; all of which, as
pointed out by Dean Mansel in the passage which follows, are, after
all, qualities of the human mind as well as attributes of Deity; and
hence the philosophers, after all their labor, have not escaped from
anthropomorphism, but have merely represented Deity to our conscious-
ness, shorn of some of the higher qualities of the human mind, which
Grod is represented in the scriptures as possessing in their perfection
— such as love, mercy, justice. As orthodox Christian ministers
both Catholic and Protestant alike, including Mr. Y., are afflicted
with the same madness, I see no reason why the Dean's reproof should
not be made to apply to them, and hence quote the passage in extenso:
"They may not forsooth, think of the unchangeable God as if he were
their fellow man, influenced by human motives, and moved by human
supplications. They want a truer, juster idea of the Deity as he is,
than that under which he has been pleased to reveal himself; and
they call on their reason to furnish it. Fools, to dream that man can
escape from himself, that human reason can draw aught but a human
portrait of God. They do but substitute a marred and mutilated hu-
manity for one exalted and entire: they add nothing to their concep-
tion of God as he is, but only take away a part of their conception
of man. Sympathy, and love, and fatherly kindness, and for-
giving mercy, have evaporated in the crucible of their philosophy;
and what is the caput mortuum that remains, but only the sterner
features of humanity exhibited in repulsive nakedness ? The God
who listens to prayer, we are told, appears in the likeness of human
mutability. Be it so. What is the God who does not listen, but the
likeness of human obstinacy ? Do we ascribe to him a fixed purpose?
Our conception of a purpose is human. Do we speak of him as con-
tinuing unchanged ? Our conception of continuance is human. Do
we conceive him as knowing and determining ? What are knowledge

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 87

as he explains them; and cites onr catechisms (chapter 5, qnes-
tion 9) in proof of it !* I quote the reference given:

•This is a thing so astonishing for Mr. Van Der Donckt to say,
that lest the reader should think I had misunderstood him I place
before him in this note Mr. Van Der Donckt's statement at length.
'It is a well known fact that all men after the example of the in-
spired writings, malce frequent use of the figure called anthropo-
morphism, attributing to the Deity a human body, human members,
human passions, etc.; and that is done, not to imply that God is pos-
sessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or
certain truths more intelligible to man, who, while he tarries in this
world, can perceive things and even ideas only through his senses, or
through bodily organs.

"That even the Latter-day Saints thus understand such expres-
sions is evident from their catechism" (chapter 5: question 9),
etc., etc.

and determination but modes of human consciousness ? and what
know we of consciousness itself, but as the contrast between succes-
sive mental states ? But our rational philosopher stops short in
his reasoning. He strips off from humanity just so much as suits
his purpose; 'and the residue thereof he make th a God;* — less pious
in his idolatry than the carver of the graven image, in that he does
not fall down unto it and pray unto it, but is content to stand off and
reason concerning it. And why does he retain any conception of
God at all, but that he retains some portions of an imperfect human-
ity ? Man is still the residue that is left; deprived indeed of all that
is amiable in humanity, but in the darker features which remain, still
man. Man in his purposes; man in his inflexibility; man in that re-
lation to time from which no philosophy, whatever its pretensions,
can wholly free itself; pursuing with indomitable resolutions a pre-
conceived design; deaf to the yearning instincts which compel his
creatures to call upon him. Yet this, forsooth, is a philosophical con-
ception of the Deity, more worthy of an enlightened reason than the
humanjmagery of the Psalmist: 'The eyes of the Lord are over the

88 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

9. Q. If God is a person, how can he be everywhere present ?
A. His person cannot be in more than one place at the
same time, but he is everywhere present by his Holy Spirit.

righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers.' Surely down-
right idolatory is better than this rational worship of a fragment of
humanity. Better is the superstition which sees the image of God in
the wonderful whole which God has fashioned, than the philosophy
which would carve for itself a Deity out of the remnant which man
has mutilated. Better to realize the satire of the eleatic philosopher,
(Xenophanes) to make God in the likenesss of man, even as the ox or
the horse might conceive gods in the form of oxen or horses, than to
adorn some half-hewn Hermes, the head of a man joined to a mis-
shapen block. Better to fall down before that marvelous compound
of human consciousness whose elements God has joined together, and
no man can put asunder, than to strip reason of those cognate ele-
ments which together furnish all that we can conceive or imagine of
conscious or personal existence, and to deify the emptiest of all ab-
stractions, a something or nothing, with just enough of its human
original left to form a theme for the disputation of philosophy, but
not enough to furnish a single ground of appeal to the human feel-
ings of love, of reverence, and of fear. Unmixed idolatry is more
religious than this. Undisguised atheism is more logical." (Limits
of Religious Thought, Mansel, pp. 56-58).

Notwithstanding this passage, however, it should be remarked
that Dean Mansel holds on the very next page of this treatise that
there is a principle of truth of which this philosophy is the perver-
sion. "Surely," he remarks, there is a sense in which we may not
think of God as though he were a man; as there is also a sense in
which we cannot help so thinking of him. ***** We feel
that there is a true foundation for the system which denies human
attributes to God; though the superstructure , which has been raised upon
ity logically involves the denial of his very existence^ The position of
the Dean, as is well known, is that such are the limitations of the
human mind — such the limitations of religious thought, that man
may not hope to understand the divine nature, but as an act of faith
must accept what is revealed [concerning that, nature.

1.

Q.

A.

2.

Q.

A.

of God.

*

3.

Q.

of a man?

A.

THE "mormon*' doctrine OP DEITY. 89

This is preceded by the followlDg passages from the same
book and chapter:

What kind of a being is God ?
He is in the form of a man.
How do you learn this ?

The scriptures declare that man was made in the image

* *

Have you any further proof of God's being in the form

Yes. Jesus Christ was in the form of a man, and was
at the same time in the image of God's person. * ♦ ♦

4. Q. Is it not said that God is a spirit ?

A. Yes; the scriptures say so. (John 4: 24.) • * *

5. Q. How, then, can God be like man ?

A. Man has a spirit, though clothed with a body, and God
is similarly constituted.

6. Q. Has God a body then ?

A. Yes; like unto man's body in figure.

7. Q. Is the person of God very glorious ?
A. Yes; infinitely glorious.

8. Q. Is God everywhere present ?

A. Yes; He is in all parts of the universe.

Then follows, of course, question nine and its answer, quoted
above and by Mr. V.; and yet the gentleman, in the very face
of these explicit statements concerning the reality of God's
form in our faith, would have it believed that the Latter-day
Saints understand the expressions of scripture ascribing human
forms, limbs and organs to God as he explains them— not to
imply that God is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to
make spiritual things more intelligible to man !'' This is a
splendid illustration of Mr. V's ability to misunderstand.

Mr. V. next takes up the subject of understanding the lan-
guage of the Bible literally. He says it is from anthropomor-
phic passages of the Bible that the Latter-day Saints conclude

90 THE *'mormon" doctrine of deity

that God has a body — snch passages as speak of the face, hands
feet and other limbs and organs of God. He holds these pas-
sages to be figurative. *1 contend," he remarka, "that if we
must understand the Bible literally in those passages C'God cre-
ated man in his own image") from which they attempt to prove
that God has a body, we must interpret it literally in other
similar passages"* 1 assent to that. It is well known that the
language of the Bible is highly figurative, almost extravagantly
so in places, and much allowance must be made for the inclination
to imagery of prophetic natures, which, like poetic tempera-
ments, are given to imagery; and hyperbole is the vice of oriental
speech. But Mr. V. is not true to this canon of interpretation he
lays down, viz., the same rule oj interpretation must he applied to
passages that are similar in character. After laying down this prin-
ciple of interpretation, he proceeds to depart from it by placing
for comparison very dissimilar passages. What similarity is there,
for example, in the plain, matter of fact statement, "God cre-
ated man in his own- image, in the image of God created he
him;" and the passage he quotes from Psalms: "If I take my
wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost part of
the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand
shall hold me"? And this also: "Whither shall I flee from thy
face. If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; If I descend
into hell thou art there ?" Has not the Reverend gentleman
placed for comparison here the most dissimilar passages that
perhaps could be found in the whole Bible ? Yet he insists that
the prosy passage from Genesis must be regarded as equally figur-
ative with David's poetry, and insists that if "Mormons" believe
literally that God made man in his own image and likeness, or
that Moses and seventy elders saw the God of Israel, as plainly
declared by Moses, then '^hey must believe that God had such

* Italics are mine — R.

THE *'mORMON" doctrine OP DEITY. 91

a very long hand as to extend to the uttermost parts of the
sea;" and "such an extremely long face, reaching from heaven
to bell;" and "conclude that David had wings !" Further re-
marks on this head are not liecessary. One is under no obliga-
tion to seriously discuss nonsense.

Of the Incarnation of the Son oj God,

Another case of misapprehension of "Mormon" ideas will
be found in what Mr. Van Der Donckt says with reference to
the Latter-day Saints' sacred books not teaching the Christian
truth of the incarnation of Deity in the person of Jesus Christ.
The sacred books of the Latter-day Saints may not contain the
verbiage of so-called Christian literature on the subject; but if
full recognition of the fact that Jesus was in the beginning
with the Father — was the "Word," and, moreover, the "Word"
that "was God," and afterwards was made flesh and dwelt
among men — is to believe in the incarnation of the Son of
God, then the sacred books of the Latter- day Saints teach this
doctrine, for over and over again in our sacred books will pas-
sages to that effect be found (especially section 98 of the
Doctrine and Covenants). Moreover, the Reverend gentleman
should remember that "Mormons" include among their sacred
books the Holy Bible, and all the doctrine of incarnation taught
in that book is our doctrine. I think the main difference be-
tween the Latter-day Saints and "Christians" on the subject of
incarnation, is that the Latter-day Saints believe that incarna-
tion does not stop with the Lord Jesus Christ. Our sacred
books teach that not only was Jesus Christ in the beginning
with God, but that the spirits of all men were also with him in
the beginning, and that these sons of God, as well as the Lord
Jesus Christ, became incarnated in bodies of flesh and bone (Doc-
trine and Covenants, section 93). But Mr. V. thinks he dis-
covers in this doctrine of incarnation a proof that "God has

92 THE "mormon" doctrine of deity.

not a body and therefore ia not an exalted man," ** It is plain,"
says he, "that the Son of God became flesh only at the time of
his sojourn on earth. Now had he been flesh or man before,
as the 'Mormons' hold, how could he become what he was al-
ready from all eternity?" This is another instance of Mr. V.'s
misapprehension of what "Mormons" teach. We nowhere
teach that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was flesh and bone
from all eternity.

When seeking to make "Mormonism" appear inconsistent
with itself, the Reverend gentleman is in duty bound to keep in
mind our whole doctrine on any particular subject he is treat-
ing. He should remember that our theology holds that the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct and separate person-
ages, in the sense that they are three distinct individuals; and
that the Father is a personage of flesh and bone, as Jesus now
is; but previous to Messiah's birth into the world, he was a
spirit, the First Born of the hosts of the spirits in heaven, and
was with the Father in the beginning of the creation of our
earth and its heavens. Indeed, under the direction of the
Father, he was the creator of them (Heb. 1: 3; Col. 15: 17;
John 1: 3); but he came to the earth to receive a tabernacle,
that in all things he might become as his Father is — a divine
spirit inseparably united to a sacred and glorified body — one
glorious spiritual personage. As muchof Mr. V.'s argument on
this head is built on a misapprehension of our doctrine, it will
not be necessary for me to follow him through the interminable
windings of his argument with reference to it. "There is never
a proper ending to reasoning which proceeds on a false founda-
tion" (Cicero).

Mr. V. next brings as proof against God's being an exalted
man, what he calls the direct statement of the Bible, that God
is not man: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the
son of man, that he should be changed" (Numbers 23: 19). "I

THE **MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY. 93

am God and not man" (Psalm). These passages simply present
the contrast between man as he is now, and with all his imper-
fections on his head, and God. The Latter-day Saints do not
teach that man in his present state and condition is God; on the
contrary, they hold that there is a very, very wide difference
between them, all the difference indicated by the Bible: but
they do believe that through the eternities that will iiass over
man's head, and with God for gaide and teacher, he may become
as his Father in heaven is, and that such is his destiny.* It fol-
lows that when man shall attain to that destiny, the contrast
now so striking between man and God will not exist. The. con-
trast noted in the scriptures by Mr. V. is not between perfected
men and God, but between very imperfect men--men who lie,
and are changeable — and God; and since the Latter-day Saints
do not hold that man while imperfect is God, or like God, or
God like him, the argument of the gentleman, based on the
passages quoted, is of no force. It could be said of some
grandly developed, noble, high-minded man, such as a Glad-
stone, a Bismarck, or a Washington: He is not a child that he
should halt in reason, or falter in action, or be frightened by
phantoms of the dark. But such a contrast does not include

* In a discourse in which much of the **Mormon** doctrine con-
cerning the Deity is unfolded by the Prophet Joseph Smith — the King
FoUett discourse (see chapter 5) — in a passage dealing with the time
in which man may Attain to some of the contemplated exaltations in
the future, he remarks: **When you climb up a ladder, you must begin
at the bottom and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top;
and so it is with the principles of the Gospel — you must begin with
the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation.
But it will he a great while after you have passed through the vail [of
death] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended
in this world : it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exalta-
tion, even beyond the graved

94 THE "mormon** doctrine op deity.

the idea that the child may not change his status, and finally
become all that the great man is with whom he is now con-
trasted. Clearly, the contrast is one of conditions, more than
of natures, and at its very highest value is the contrast between
a perfected nature and one not yet perfected.

The same answer applies to the Reverend gentleman's con-
tention based on the passages, ''Thou art always the selfsame;"
"I am the Lord and change not;" "The Father of lights, with
whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration." These
passages teach what the Reverend gentleman calls the 'Immut-
ability of God," which he holds to preclude the idea that God
rose from a state of imperfection to that of perfection —
since he is always the "selfsame." Before answering at length,
I couple with this Mr. Van Der Donckt's final argument on this
division of the subject — the scriptural evidences and argu-
ments on the form and nature of God — namely, "The Latter-
day Saints' theory of the Man-God supposes a past and present
with God. The Bible excludes that succession of time,'* says
the Reverend gentleman, "and speaks of God as the everlasting
present; *I Am Who am,' 'From eternity to eternity thou art
God.' " Against this argument, based upon God's reputed
nnchangeableness, and being always as he now is, from all eter-
nity to eternity, I wish to say, first, that the God-nature is
doubtless always the same, without reference to those who may
attain unto it; and speaking of the God-nature, it is always the
^'Selfsame," from eternity to eternity; but after that statement,
against the Reverend gentleman's argument bottomed on God's
immutability and eternity — and, in fact, against all his argu-
ments, from first to last, respecting the form and nature of
God, I place Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the revelation of
God to man. I place him as my premises, and my argument
against all the reverend gentleman has said, or can say, on
this division of the subject. ^^ I call attention to the'Jact that

THE '^mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 95

neither in my discourse which brought forth Mr. Van Der
Donck'ts Reply nor in this Rejoinder, have I turned to those
numerous passages of the Bible that speak of the face, limbs
or organs of God. Not that I mistrust • the force of those
passages as evidence, but because I have thought it un-
necessary to appeal to them, so long as I had in Jesus, the
Messiah, a full length and complete representation of God, not
only as to the reality of his being, but as to the kind of being
God is. And now I ask, as I did in my discourse, is Jesus God?
Is he a manifestation of God— a revelation of him? If so,
there must be in him an end of controversy; for whatever
Jesus Christ was and is God must be, or Jesus Christ is no
manifestation, no revelation of God. Is Jesus Christ in form
like man? Is he possessed of a body of flesh and bone which
is eternally united to him — and now an integral part of him?
Does he possess body, parts and passions? There can be but
one answer to all these questions, and that is, ''Yes; he
possessed and now possesses all these things." Then God
also possesses them ; for even according to both Catholic and
orthodox Protestant Christian doctrine, Jesus Christ was and is
God, and the complete manifestation and revelation o^ God the
Father.

Also the specific points of argument based upon God's un-
changeability, and there being no succession of time with God
— that, too, is answered in the person and experience of Jesus
Christ. According to Catholic teaching, Jesus was a spirit,
identical with God the Father in substance, before he became
man; but at a certain time he became man, was not that a
change? By it, he became something he was not before. His
humanity, according to their teaching, was added to the Son
of God when he received his tabernacle of flesh and bone; and
he was certainly changed from an unembodied state to an em-
bodied one; and there was a "before and after" — in reference

96 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

to this great event, in the God Jesus' experience. U it think-
able that this change was a deterioration? Was the Son of God's
divinity debased to the human, or was so much of humanity as
he took on raised to the divine nature, and henceforth made an
integral part of it?

The orthodox doctrine of Christianity is — Catholic and Pro-
testant alike — that Jesus Christ is God; that he always was and
is God, according to both orthodox theology and Christian
philosophy. Yet it is said of this Jesus that he ^'increased in
wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke
2: 52). Here is certainly a change in condition; here is succes-
sion of time with God — a before and after; here is being and
becoming; for whereas, he was a spirit, he became man; and in
becoming man, he passed through all the phases in life from
infancy to manhood. It is significant also that it was not until
Jesus had arisen from the tomb and stood in the presence of
his disciples, a glorified personage, body and spirit united, that
he exclaimed, ''All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.**
If ''given,** there must have been a time when he did not
possess all power in heaven and in earth; £knd hence, a change
from possessing some power to the condition of possessing
"all power," a fullness of power — "for it pleased the Father
that in him should all fullness dwell" (Col. 1: 19). But more of
this when I come to deal with Mr. Van Der Donckt's philo-
sophical proofs on the subject. I shall close this part of my
rejoinder with the following summary of the facts maintained
thus far in my argument:

i^rs^;— While the scriptures declare that God is a spirit, it
does not follow that he is necessarily an unembodied spirit; on the
contrary, it is clear that he is an embodied spirit; for Jesus
Christ is God, and he, we know, is a spirit and body united; and
he is said to be the express image of his Father's person;
therefore, the Father of Jesus Christ, or God the Father, must

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 97

be jast what Jesus is— a spirit embodied in a taberDacle of flesh
and bone.

Second: — Although the Bible says that God is a spirit, and
speaks of angels as spirits also, and points out some differences
between the nature of men and spirits, it does not follow that
spirits are immaterial beings, and therefore without form. On
the contrary, the evidence of scripture is to the effect that
angels are very substantial personages. One wrestled bodily
with Jacob and lamed him; while three others "did eat"
of the substantial meal provided by Abraham; and there are
many other proofs of angels being substantial, material
personages.

Ihird: — It is an assumption absolutely unwarranted by
authority of the word of God to say that when spirits, or angels,
or Jesus — before his incarnation — showed themselves to men,
they merely assumed the material garb for the occasion.

Fowrtt;— Although the Bible in sundry passages speaks of
God the Father as "invisible," it does not follow that he is abso-
lutely so, nor invisible from the nature of his being; on the
contrary, it is clear from what has been set forth that under
certain special conditions, God the Father as well as Jesus —
before his incarnation — and certain angels, have been seen; and
hence, the invisibility of God the Father, arises from his being
invisible to men in their normal condition, unquickened by, and
unclothed with, the power of God.

Fifth: — The doctrine that all absolutely invisible beings
are immaterial is simply untrue, being contradicted by the
fact that a number of absolutely invisible things are known
to be material, and yet possess some of the properties of
grosser matter; and it is reasonable to believe that the same
truth holds as to spiritual beings.

Sixth: — The Bible distinctly ascribes to God and angels the
form, limbs, organs, feelings and passions of men; and the Bible

98 THE "mormon** doctrine op deity.

nowhere leads us to believe that this ascription of bodily form
and organs and passions to God is simply to "make spiritual
things, or certain truths more intelligible to man;" nor does it
follow because some passages of the Bible are figurative, and
hence not to be taken literally, that all the passages ascribing
human form, organs and feelings to God are figurative, and
hence not to be taken literally. It is only when anthropo-
morphic passages and expressions are similarly used as other
clearly figurative passagesr and expressions are, that they are
to be adjudged as figurative and not to be taken literally.

Seventh: — And lastly, beside all premises and arguments
to the eflPect that God is an unembodied spirit, without form,
without limbs, organs, features, human feelings, or passions,
such as love, compassion, pity, etc., etc., — beside all this, I place
the Lord Jesus, the Image of God the Father's person, the full
length representation and revelation of God to men, as an all
sufficient answer, and say that whatsoever Jesus Christ was and
is, do, too, has been and is God, the Father; for such is the
teaching of holy scripture.

II.

MR. VAN DER DONCKT'S "PHILOSOPHICAL PROOFS" OP THE FORM
AND NATURE OF GOD.

Mr. Van Der Donckt, at the beginning of his argument
under his "philosophical proofs of God's simplicity or spiri-
tuality," again exhibits the fact that he misapprehends the
doctrines of the Latter-day Saints. He says: "The Latter-
day Saints believe that God created the souls of men long before
their conception." That is not the belief of the Latter-day
Saints; and his misapprehension of what their doctrine is
relative to man and God leads the gentleman to make state-
ments, and indulge in lines of argumentation he would not

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 99

have followed had he apprehended aright the teachings of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since his philo-
sophical argument has proceeded from a wrong basis, it
becomes necessary to state what the **Mormon" doctrine is
relative to the subject in hand, and then consider so much of
his argument as may apply to the facts.

Latter-day Saints believe that the "soul of man" consists of
both his spirit and his body united. "The 8pirit and the body
is the soul of man; and the resurrection from the dead is the
redemption of the soul" (Doc. and Cov. sec. 88: 15, 16).
This, I am aware, is not the usually accepted sense of the word
"soul;" for it generally stands for what is regarded as the
incorporeal nature of man, or the principle of mental and
spiritual life of him. It is used variously in the scriptures.
In one place, the Savior uses it in contrast with the body:
"Pear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10: 28). But the word as used
in the passage above quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants
also has warrant of scriptural authority: "And the Lord
God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul"
(Gen. 2: 7). Here body and "breath of life," the spirit, con-
stitute the soul of man.

Of course, Mr. Van Der Donckt uses the phrase "souls of
men" as we perhaps would use the phrase "spirits of men," and
evidently makes reference to our doctrine of the pre-existence
of spirits, that is, the doctrine of the actual existence of the
spirits of men long ages before they tabernacled in tfie flesh,
when he says: "The Latter-day Saints believe that God creates
the souls of men long before their conception." But again ex-
planation is necessary, as that statement does not quite meet
our belief. Our doctrine is that "Intelli;]!;ences are begotten

100 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

spirits;" which spirits are in form like men, and are realb
substance, that is, matter, but of a more subtle and finer natun
than the matter composing man's tabernacle of flesh and bone.'^
Christians believe that "the Word," that is, Jesus Christ, was in
the beginning with God; and not only that "the Word" was
with God, but also that "the Word was God" (John 1: 1, 2).
Latter-day Saints not only believe Jesus was in the beginning
with God, but it is their doctrine that man was "also in the
beginning with the Father, that which is spirit" (Doc. and Cov.
sec. 93: 23). And again: "Man was also in the beginning
with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth was not created or
made, neither indeed can be. * * * * Every man whose
spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation for man is
spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, in-
separably connected, receive a fullness of joy; and when separ-
ated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are
the tabernacle of God; yea man is the tabernacle of God, even
temples" (Doc and Cov. sec. 93: 29, 32-35). The point to
be observed is that intelligences — whence the spirits of men —
are not created or made, nor indeed can they be, for they are
eternal— eternal as God the Father, and God the Son are. "The
mind of man— the immortal spirit — where did it come from ?"
asks the Prophet Joseph Smith, in a discourse delivered at
Nauvoo;t and then answers:

All learned men, and doctors of divinity, say that God created it
in the beginning; but it is not so; the very idea lessens man in my

* The Prophet Joseph teaches that "all spirit is matter, but it is
more fine or pure [than the gross matter tangible to our senses] and
can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when
our bodies are purified, we shall see that it is all matter.*' (Doc. and
Cov. sec 137.)

t April 7th, 1844, MUl. Star, vol. xxiii p. 245, et seq.

THE "mormon*' doctrine OF DEITV. 101

estimation. - I do not believe the doctrine. I know better. Hear it,
all ye ends of the world, for God has told me so. If you don't believe
me it will not make the truth without effect. * * * * We say
that God himself is a self- existent being. Who told you so ! It is
correct enough, but who told you that man did not exist in like man-
ner upon the same principle ? God made a tabernacle and put his
[man's] spirit into it, and it became a living soul. How does it read
in Hebrew ? It does not say in Hebrew that God created the spirit
of man. It say?, "God made man out of earth and put in him Adam's
spirit, and so became a living body. The mind, or the intelligence
which man possesses id co-eternal with God himself. * * • * ♦ i
am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say
that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a be-
ginning ? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will
it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may
have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits,
for they are co- eternal with our Father in heaven. I want to reason
more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit
of man — on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger
and liken it unto the mind of man — the immortal part, because it has
no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning
and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So
with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it has a beginning it
will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the
beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a begin-
ning, prove that it must have an end: and if that doctrine is true,
then the doctrine of annihilation would be true But if I am right, I
might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never had
the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not
create himself. Intelligence is eternal, and exists upon a self-existent
principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation
about it. * * * * The spirit of man is not a created being; it
existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created
cannot be eternal: and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an
elementary state, from eternity.

Mr. Van Der Donckt will recognize quite a difference be-

102 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

tween the doctrine here stated as to the spirits of men, and the
one he states for us when he says, "Latter-day Saints believe
that God creates the. souls of men long before their concep-
tion." There is that in man, according to our doctrine, which
is not created at all; there is in him an "ego" — a "spirit" un-
created, never made, a self-existent entity, eternal as God him-
self; and of the same kind of substance or essence with him, and,
indeed, part of him, when God is conceived of in the generic
sense.

With the doctrine of "Mormonism" relative to man and
God thus stated, the question is, what part of Mr. Van Der
Donckt's philosophical argument touches it ?

Mr. Van Der Donckt, it must be remembered, bases his
philosophical argument upon the absolute "simplicity or spirit-
uality" of God. "I Am Who Am," is the definition of God about
which circle all his arguments. God is "the Necessary
Being," is his contention; infinite, illimitable; not limited by his
own essence, by another, or by himself. From which I under-
stand him to mean, after the philosophers of his school, that
God, the very essence of him, is pure being— "Actual being or
existence" are his own words. (Page 53).

This his premise; and the part of his argument which
affects our doctrine is the following:

If God were an aggregation of parts, these parts would be
either necessary beings or contingent (that do not necessarily exist),
or some would be nececessary and some contingent. None of these
suppositions are tenable, therefore God is not an aggregate of parts.
* ♦ * * If the parts of God were necessary beings, there would
be several independent beings, which the infinity of God precludes.
God would not be infinite, if there were even one other being inde-
pendent of him, as his power, etc., would not reach that being.

The infinite being is most simple, or not compound. Were he
compound, his parts would be either all finite, or all infinite, or one

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 103

infinite and the others finite. None of these suppositions are possible,
therefore he is not compound.

Several finite things cannot produce an infinite or an illimitable,
as there would always be a first and last.

Many infinite beings are inconceivable, for, if there were several
they would have to differ from each other by some perfection. Now,
from the moment one would have a perfection the other one lacks,
the latter would not be infinite. Therefore, God cannot be a com-
pound of infinite parts.

If one is infinite, nothing can be added to it. Finite parts could
not belong to the infinite essence, else they would communicate their
limitations to God.

Therefore, the infinite Being is not composite, but simple or
spiritual. Therefore he is not, nor ever was, a man, who is a com-
posite being.

Of Mr. Van Der DonckVs Premise,

I have to do first of all with Mr. Van Der Donckt's premise
— "the simplicity or spirituality" of God.

So far as it is possible to make language do it, the
gentleman teaches that God is "pure being," "most [there-
fore absolutely] simple — not compound." He is not only
infinite, then, but infinity. It follows that he is without quality,
other than being — mere existence — "I Am Who Am;" without
attributes; n6t susceptible of division, or of relation; for if he
possessed quality or attiibute or was susceptible of divi-
sion or of relation, his absolute simplicity — that tremulously
precarious thing on which, according to Mr. V's philos-
ophy, his very existence and all his excellence depends —
would be destroyed. It was doubtless these considerations
that led the Church of England — which, by the way, is at one
with the Roman Catholic Church in the doctrine of God —
to say of the "one true and living God," that he is with-

104 THE "mormon** doctrine op deity.

out body, parts or passions* With which also the West-
minster Confession of Faith agrees, by saying: "There is
but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and
perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or
passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible," etc.f
The German school of philosophy of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, which ends in inevitable agnosticism, went
but one step further than these creeds; a step made inevitable
by the creeds themselves. The creeds postulate God as **pure
being" —"existence" *Hhe one who could not not exist," Mr.V's in-
terpretation of "I Am Who Am." But "existence," says Fichte,
"implies origin," and "God is beyond origin" — i. e. beyond
"being," "existence." Schelling reached substantially the same
conclusion when, by a pathway but little divergent from that
followed by Fichte, he was led to regard God as neither "real or
ideal;" "neither thought nor being." While Hegel, by similar
subtleties, established the identity of "Being and Non-Being."
This German philosophy,which but extends the philosophy of the
orthodox creeds t j its legitimate conclusion, leaves us with the
paradox on our hands of regarding God at once as the most real
existence, and as the most absolute non-existence. The conclu-
sions from the premise are just; and Mr. V's most simple," "in-
finite being," he who is "pure existence itself," evanishes amid
the metaphysical subtleties of the learned Germans t

* Bk. Com. Prayer, Articles of Religi(»n, Art. 1.

t Westmnister Confession, Art. 2, Sec. 1.

t "Existence itself, that so-called highest category of thought,
is only conceivable in the form of existence modified in some partic-
ular manner. Strip off its modification, and the apparent paradox of
the German philosopher becomes literally true; — pure being is pure
nothing. We have no conception of existence which is not existence
in some particular manner; and if we abstract from the manner, we
have nothing left to constitute the existence. Those who, in their

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 105

Let us examine the effect of this Deity-destroyiDg postu-
late in England. Mr. Van Der Donckt's "Infinite being," "most
simple or not compound," is identical with the "absolute," the
"unconditioned;" the "first cause," hence the "uncaused." These
terms, it is well known, Mr. Herbert Spencer seized upon, in his
volume on "First Principles," and ran them down to logical ab-
surdity, showing them to be "unthinkable," and that ultimate re-
ligious ideas (arising from the postulates of orthodox creeds)
lead to the "Unknown !" In reaching this conclusion he was
wonderfully helped by Henry L. Mansel, some time Dean of St.
Paul's, who in his celebrated Bampton Lecture arrives at sub-
stantially the same conclusion — with an exception to be noted
later.* Indeed, so nearly at one are the churchman and the
philosopher, in their methods of thought, in their deductions,
that the latter reaches his conclusions from the data and rea-
•soning of the former, whom he quotes with approval and at
great length. I select from these writer a few typical passages
tending to show the absurdity of God's "simplicity," or "spirit-
uality," as held by Mr. Van Der Donckt, reminding the reader
that Mr. V's "Infinite Being," "most simple or not compound,"
is identical with the "absolute," "unconditioned," the *'first
cause," the "uncaused" of both Mr. Mansel and Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Spencer, after showing that the First Cause cannot be
finite, nor dependent, reaches the conclusion that it must be in-
finite and independent; and then proceeds:

But to think of the First Cause as totally independent is to think
of it as that which existed in the absence of all other existence; see-
horror of what they call anthropomorphism, or anthropopathy, refuse
to represent the Deity under symbols borrowed from the limitations
of human consciousness, are bound in consistency, to deny that God
exists; for the conception of existence is as human and as limited as
any other (Limits of Religious Thought, Mansel, pp. 95, 96).

* Page 109.
7

106 THE "mormon-' DOCTtllNE OP DElTY.

ing that if the presence of any other existence is necessary, it must
be partially dependent on that other existence, and so cannot be
the First Cause. Not only, however, must the First Cause be -a form
of being which has no necessary relation to any other form of being,
but it can have no necessary relation within itself. There can be
nothing in it which determines change, and yet nothing which pre-
vents change. For if it contains something which imposes such ne-
cessities or restraints, this something must be a cause higher than the
First Cause, which is absurd. Thus the First Cause must be in every
sense perfect, complete, total; including within itself all power, and
transcending all law. Or to use the established word, it must be
absolute.*

Thus far the philosopher; and eveD Mr. Van Der Donckt, I
think, could not complain that he has not stated the "simplic-
ity" of the First Cause most clearly. But at this point the phil-
osopher, Mr. Spencer, introduces the churchman, Dean Mansel,
to abolish the structure of the "First Cause," the **simple" or
"spiritual being:," or "God," as held by Mr. V. and all orthodox
Christians. I quote Mr. Mansel:

But these three conceptions — the Cause, the Absolute, the Infin-
ite — all equally indispensable, do they not imply contradiction to
each other, when viewed in conjunction, as attributes of one and the
same Being ? A Cause cannot, as such, be absolute: the Absolute can-
not as such be a cause. The cause, as such, exists only in relation to
its effect; the effect is an effect of the cause. On the other hand,
the conception of the Absolute implies a possible existence out of all
relation. We attempt to escape from this apparent contradiction by
introducing the idea of succession in time. The Absolute exists first
by itself, and afterwards becomes a cause. But here we are checked by
the third conception, that of the infinite. How can the infinite be-
come that which it was not from the first ? If Causation is a possible
mode of existence, that which exists without causing is not infinite;
that which becomes a cause has passed beyond its former limits. * *

* First Principles (Spencer) pp. 29, 30; 1896 edition, D. Apple-
ton & Co., N. Y.

THE "mormon'' doctrine OF DEITY. 107

Supposing the Absolute to be a cause, it will follow that it oper-
ates by means of free will and consciousness. For a necessary
cause cannot be conceived as absolute and infinite. If necessitated
by something beyond itself, it is thereby limited by a superior power:
and if necessitated by itself, it has in its own nature a necessary rela-
tion to its effect. The act of causation must therefore be vol-
untary, and volition is only possible in a conscious being. But con-
sciousness again is only conceivable as a relation. There must be a
conscious subject and an object of which he is conscious. The sub-
ject is a subject to the object; the object is an object to the subject;
and neither can exist by itself as the absolute. This difficulty,
again, may be for the moment evaded, by distinguishing between the ab-
solute as related to another and the absolute as related to itself. The
absolute, it may be said, may possibly be concious provided it is only
conscious of itself. But this alternativeis, in ultimate analysis, no less
self-destructive than the other. For the object of consciousness,
whether a mode of the subject's existence or not is either created in
and by the act of consciousness, or has an existence independent of it.
In the former case the object depends upon the subject, and the subject
alone is the true absolute. In the latter case, the subject depends
upon the object, and the object alone is the true absolute. Or, if we
attempt a third hypothesis, and maintain that each exists independently
of the other, we have no absolute at all, but only a pair of relatives;
for co-existen?e, whether in consciousness or not, is itself a relation.
The corollary from this reasoning is obvious. Not only is the
absolute, as conceived, incapable of a necessary relation to anything
else, but it is also incapable of containing, by the constitution of its
own nature, an essential relation within itself; as a whole, for in-
stance composed of parts, or as a substance consisting of attributes,
or as a conscious subject in antithesis to an object. For, if there is
in the absolute any principle of unity, distinct from the mere accu-
mulation of parts or attributes, this principle alone is the true abso-
lute. If, on the other hand, there is no such principle, then there is
no absolute at all, but only a plurality of relatives. The almost
unanimous voice of philosophy, in pronouncing that the absolute is
both one and simple, must be accepted as the voice of reason also, as

108 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

far as reason has any voice in the matter. Bui this absolute unity,
as indifferent and containing no attributes, can neither be dis-
tinguished from the multiplicity of finite beings by any character-
istic feature, nor be identified with them in their multiplicity. Thus
we are landed in an inextricable dilemma. The absolute cannot be
conceived as conscious, neither can it be conceived as unconscious: it
cannot be conceived as complex, neither can it be conceived as sim-
ple; it cannot be conceived by difference, neither can it be conceived
by the absence of difference: it cannot be identified with the uni-
verse, neither can it be distinguished from it. The One and the
Many, regarded as the beginning of existence, are thus alike incom-
prehensible.

Let us, however, suppose, for an instance, that these difficulties
are surmounted, and the existence of the Absolute securely estab-
lished on the testimony of reason. Still we have not succeeded in
reconciling this idea with that of a Cause: we have done nothing
towards explaining how the absolute can give rise to the relative —
the infinite to the finite. If the condition of causal activity is a
higher state than that of quiescence, the Absolute, whether acting
voluntarily or involuntarily, has passed from a condition of com-
parative imperfection to one of comparative perfection; and, there-
fore, was not originally perfect. If the state of activity is an
inferior state to that of quiescence, the Absolute, in becoming a
cause, has lost its original perfection. There remains only the
supposition that the two states are equal, and the act of creation
one of complete indifference. But this supposition annihilates the
unity of the absolute, or it annihilates itself. If the act of crea-
tion is real, and yet indifferent, we must admit the possibility of
two conceptions of the absolute — the one as productive, the other
as non-productive. If the act is not real, the supposition itself van-
ishes. * * *

Again, how can the relative be conceived as coming into being?
If it is a distinct reality from the absolute, it must be conceived as
passing from non-existence into existence. But to conceive an object
as non-existent is again a self-contradiction; for that which is con-
ceived exists, as an object of thought, in and by that conception. We

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 109

may abstain from thinking of an object at all; but, if we think of it,
we cannot but think of it as existing. It is possible at one time not
to think of an object at all, and at another to think of it as already in
being; but to think of it in the act of becoming, in the progress from
not being into being, is to think that which, in the very thought, an-
nihilates itself. * * *

To sum up briefly this portion of my argument:

The conception of the absolute and the infinite, from whatever
side we view it, appears encompassed with contradictions

There is a contradiction in supposing such an object to exist,
whether alone or in conjunction with others; and there is a contra-
diction in supposing it not to exist.

There is a contradiction in conceiving it as one; and there is a
contradiction in conceiving it as many.

There is a contradiction in conceiving it as personal; and there
is a contradiction in conceiving it as impersonal.

It cannot, without contradiction, be represented as active, nor,
without equal contradiction, be represented as inactive.

It c&nnot be conceived as the sum of all existence; nor yet can
it be conceived as a part only of that sum. *

After thus running to absurdity the prevalent conceptions
of the "Infinite," the "Absolute, the "Uncaused, Mr. V's "Most
simple or not compound" "Being," the churchman does what all
orthodox Christians do, he commits a violence against all hu-
man understanding and good sense — he arbitrarily declares, in
the face of his own inexorable logic and its inevitable deduc-
tions, that, ** t is our duty to think of God as personal; and it is
our duty to believe that he is infinite;'* that is, it is our duty
to think of the infinite as at once limited and unlimited; as
finite and infinite — "which," to use a phrase dear to Mr. Van
Der Donckt. "is absurd," and therefore not to be entertained.
At this point, the philosepher and the churchman reach the

♦ First Principles (Spencer) pp. 40-44. Limits of Religious
Thoughts, lecture II, first American edition, 1875.

110 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

parting of the ways, and this is the exception^ in the conclusion
of the two, noted a few pages back.*

Some do indeed allege [says Mr. Spencer] that though the
Ultimate Cause of things cannot really be thought of by us as
having specified attributes, it is yet incumbent upon us to assert
these attributes. Though the forms of our consciousness are such
that the Absolute cannot, in any manner or degree, be brought with-
in them, we are nevertheless told that we must represent the Abso-
lute to ourselves under these forms! ♦ ♦ ♦ That this is not the
conclusion here adopted, needs hardly be said. If there be any
meaning in the foregoing arguments, duty requires us neither to
affirm nor deny personality. Our duty is to submit ourselves with
all humility to the established limits of our intelligence, and not per-
versely to rebel against them. Let those who can, believe there is
eternal war between our intellectual faculties and our moral obli-
gations. I, for one, admit no such radical vice in the constitution of
things.!

Yet Mr. Mansel, in the inconsistent and illogical course he
pursues, is not more inconsistent, illogical, and unphilosophical
than all orthodox Christians. The postulates of their creeds
concerning the nature of God leads them to affirm what they
call his "Spirituality," "Infinite Being," "Simplicity," etc. (which
are but the equivalents of the philosopher's "absolute," "in-
finite," and the "uncaused"); and yet the necessities of their
faith in revelation make it imperative that they regard him as
existing in some relation to the universe and to man, which
destroys his alleged "simplicity." To ascribe to him attributes
is to destroy that simplicity J which orthodox creeds affirm, and

♦ Page 105.

t First Principles, p. 110.

t "The rational conception of God is that he is, nothing more.
To give him an attribute is to make him a relative God. * * *
We cannot attribute to him any quality, for qualities are inconceiv-

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. Ill

for which Mr. Van DerDonckt so stoutly argues Nor does it help
matters when it is said that these attributes are existences —
the attitude of Mr. V., for he says: "Every perfection [goodness,
mercy, justice, etc. — attributes of God] is some existence,
something that is." If this be granted, then it follows that
God must be the sum of all these existences, therefore a com-
pound, not **simple." And not only does orthodox belief in
revelation compel those who follow it to concede the existence
of attributes in God, but personality also. But if God be con-
ceived as a personality, his "simplicity" or "spirituality," as held
by Mr. V., vanishes, because, when recognized as personality,
God is no longer "being" — but a being.

Mr. Van Der Donckt himself says; "Something is limited,
not because it is [i.e. exists]: but because it is this or that; for
instance, a stone, a plant, a man" — or a person, I suggest. For
if God has personality, he is a person, a some-thing, and hence
limited, according to Mr. V's philosophy; if limited, as he must
be when conceived of as this or that, as a person, for in-
stance, then of course not infinite being; and thus my friend's
doctrine of God's "simplicity" is destroyed the moment he
ascribes personality to Deity. Nor does the difficulties of Mr.
Van Der Donckt and all orthodox Christians end here. Not
only does revelation as they view it demand belief in the person-
ality of God,but it demands the belief that in God are three persons
— the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. This further compli-
cates the matter, and removes orthodox Christians still further
from the postulate of "simplicity" they affirm of God; for if there

able apart from matter." ** Origin and Development of Religious Be-
liefs — Christianity'* — (S. Baring-Gould, p. 112.) It was held by well-
nigh the whole mediaeval school of theologians that God was un-
knowable because "the absolute simplicity of the divine essence was
incompatible with the existence of distinctions therein.'* (See art.
* 'Theism," Ency, BriL^ and the references there given.)

112 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

are three persons in God, by no intellectual contortions what-
soever can this conception of "three'' be harmonized with the
orthodox Christian postulate of God's "simplicity." For the
Son, if he exists at all, must exist in virtue of some distinction
from the Father; so also the Holy Ghost must exist in virtue
of some distinction from both the Father and the Son. Each
must have something distinct from the other; must be what the
other is not, in some particular*,* and if each one has some-
thing the other has not, and each lacks something which the
other has, how can it be said that each of these persons is God,
and each infinite as he must be in order to be God, under Mr.
V's doctrine?

If the three be conceived as one God — yet each with that
about him which distinguishes him from the other — how can
God be regarded as "simple," "not compound?" The orthodox
creeds of Christendom, moreover, require us to believe that
while the Father is a person, the Son a person, and the Holy
Ghost a person, yet there are not three persons, but one person.
So with each being eternal and almighty. So with each being
God: "The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is
God: and yet there are not three Gods but one God" f No
wonder the whole conception is given up as "incomprehensible."
"Their mode of subsistence [i. e., the subsistence of the three
persons] in the one substance," says the Commentary on the Conr
fession of Faith, ''must ever continue to us a profound mystery, as it
transcends all analogy J^% So the Douay Catechism (Catholic), ch. i:

♦ "Distinction is necessarily limitation; for, if one object is to
be distinguished from another, it must possess some form of exist-
ence which the other has not, or it must not possess some form which
the other has." Dean Mansel, "Limits of Religious Thoughts."

t See the creed of St. Athanasius, a copy is published in the
History of the Church, vol. I, Introduction, p. 87.

% This Commentary is by Rev. A. A. Hodges, D.D., LL.D., p. 58.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 113

Q. In what do faith and law of Christ consist?
A. In two principal mysteries^ namely, the Unity and Trinity of
God, and the incarnation and death of our Savior.

"To think that God is, as we think him to be, is blas-
phemy," is the lofty assertion behind which some of the ortho-
dox hide when hard pressed with the inconsistency of their
creed; and if I mistake not, "A God understood is a God de-
throned," has long been an aphorism of the Church of which Mr.
Van Der Donckt is a priest.

But what is the sum of my argument thus far on Mr. Van
Der Donckt's premise of God's absolute "simplicity" or "spirit-
uality?" Only this:

First, his premise is proven to be unphilosophical and un-
tenable, when coupled with his creed, which ascribes qualities,
attributes and personality to God. Either the gentleman must
cease to . think of God as "infinite being," "most simple," "not
compound," or he must surrender the God of his creed, who is
represented by it to be three persons in* one substance; and,
moreover, persons possessed of attributes and qualities which
bring God into relations with men and the universe, a mode of
being which destroys "simplicity." Either one or the other of
these beliefs must be given up; they cannot consistently be held
simultaneously, as they destroy each other. If Mr. V. holds to
the God of his creed, what becomes of all his "philosophy?"
If he holds to his "philosophy," what becomes of the God of his
creed.

Second, as affecting this discussion, the matter at this
point stands thus: Since the gentleman's premise of God's
absolute simplicity is proved to be illogical and unphilosophical,
it affords no sound basis of argument against the Latter-day
Saints' views of Deity, wherein they hold him to be something
different from absolute "being" — more than a mere, and, I may
say, bare and barren "existence," a metaphysical abstraction.

114 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

Mr. V's premise of absolute simplicity aflfords no consistent
basis of argument against oar view that God is a person in
the sense of being an individual, in form like man, and possessed
of attributes which bring him within the nearest and dearest
relations to men that it is possible to conceive.

Of the Doctrine of God^s '* Simplicity^* Being of Pagan Rather than
of Christian Origin.

The next step in my argument is to prove that this doc-
trine of God being "most simple," "not compound," "pure
being" — without body [i. e., not material], parts or passions —
hence, without attributes, is not a doctrine of the Christian
scriptures, but comes from the old Pagan philosophies.

Clearly the data for this doctrine of God's absolute "sim-
plicity" did not come from the Old Testament, for that teaches
the plainest anthropomorphic ideas respecting God. It. ascribes
to him a human form, and many qualities and attributes pos-
sessed by man, which, in the minds of philosophers of Mr. V's
S3hool, limit him who must be, to their thinking, without any
limit whatsoever; and abscribes relativity to him who must not
be relative but absolute.

The data for the doctrine of God's absolute "simplicity" —
contended for by Mr. V. — does not come from the New Testa-
ment, for the writers of that volume of scripture accept the
doctrine of the Old Testament respecting God, and even em-
phasize its anthropomorphic ideas, by representing that the man
Christ Jesus was in the "express image" of God, the Father's,
person; was, in fact, God manifest in the flesh (I Tim. 3: 16);
"the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:5); God, the Word,
who was made flesh, and dwelt among men, who beheld his glory"
(St. John 1: 1-14). Hence Mr. Van Der Donckt's doctrine of God's
"simplicity" cannot claim the warrant of New Testament au-
thority.

Plato, in his Timaeus, (Jowett's translation, page 530,)

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 115

incidentally referring to God, in connection with the creation of
the universe, says:

We say indeed that "he was," **he is," "he will be;" but the truth
is that ''he is" alone truly expresses him, and that "was" and "will
be" are only to be spoken of generation in time.

Here, then, is Mr. V's "pare being," *'most simple," * not
compound." Again:

We must acknowledge that there is one kind of being which is
always the same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving any-
thing into itself from without, nor itself giving out to any other, but
invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the sight is
granted to intelligence only (Ibid. p. 454).

Here Mr. V. may find his God, "who cannot change with
regard to his existence, nor with regard to his mode of exist-
ence." Also his God who can only be seen with the "souFs in-
tellectual perception, elevated by a supernatural influx from
God." Dr. Mosheis?, in his account of Plato's idea of God, says:
"He considered the Deity, to whom he gave the supreme gov-
ernance of the universe, as a being of the highest wisdom and
power, and totally unconnected with any material substance,^* *

To the same effect, also, Justin Martyr (second Christian
century) generalizes and accepts as doctrine what may be
gathered from the sixth book of Plato's "Republic," with refer-
ence to God. To the Jew, Trypho, Justin remarks:

The Deity, father, is not to be viewed by the organs of sight,
like other creatures, but he is to be comprehended by the mind alone,
as Plato declares, and I believe him. * * * * Plato
tells us that the eye of the mind is of such a nature, and was given
us to such an end, as to enable us to see with it by itself, when pure.

♦Mosheim's "Histor'cal Commentaries on the State of Christian-
ity, During the First Three Hundred Years", vol. 1. p. 37.

116 THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY.

that Being who is the source of whatever is an object of the mind
itself, who has neither color, nor shape, nor size, nor anything which the
eye can see, bat who is above all essence, who is ineffable, and unde-
finable, who is alone beautiful and good, and who is at once implanted
into those souls who are naturally well born, through their relation-
ship to and desire of seeing him.

Athanasius (third Christian century) quotes the same
definition (Contra Gentes, ch. 2), almost verbatim. Turning
again to the Timaeus of Plato, this question is asked:

What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is
that which is always becoming and has never any being? That which
is apprehended by reflection and reason [God] always is; and is the
same; that on the other hand which is conceived by opinion, with the
help of sensation without reason [the material universe], is in a pro-
cess of becoming and perishing but never really is. * * ♦
Was the world [universe], always in existence and without begin-
ning? or created and having a beginning? Created, I reply.

In this, the orthodox Christians and Mr. V. may find their
God of pure "being/' that never is "becoming." but always is;
also the creation of the universe out of nothing. The fact is
that orthodox Christian views of God are Pagan rather than
Christian.

In his great work on the "History of Christian Doctrine,"
Mr. William G. T. Shedd savs:* "The early Fathers, in
their defenses of Christianity against their pagan opponents,
contend that the better pagan writers themselves agree
with the new religion in teaching that their is one Supreme
Being. Lactantius (Institutiones, 1, 5), after quoting the
Orphic Poets, Hesiod, Virgil, and Ovid, in proof that the
heathen poets taught the unity of the supreme deity, affirms
that the better pagan philosophers agree with them in this.

♦ Vol 1, p 56.

THE "mormon'* doctrine OP DEITY. 117

'Aristotle/ he says, 'although he disagrees with himself, and
says many things that are self-contradictory, yet testifies that
one supreme mind rules over the world. Plato, who is regard-
ed as the wisest philosopher of them all, plainly and openly
defends the doctrine of a divine monarchy, and denominates the
supreme being, not ether, nor reason, nor nature, but as he is,
God; and asserts that by him this perfect and admirable world
was made. And Cicero follows Plato, frequently confessing
the deity, and calls him the supreme being, in his Treatise on
the Laws.' "

It is conceded by Christian writers that the Christian doc-
trine of God is not expressed in New Testament terms, but in
the terms of Greek and Roman metaphysics, as witness the fol-
lowing from the very able article in the Encyclopedia Britannica
on Theism, by the Rev. Dr. Flint, Professor of Divinity, Univer-
sity of Edinburgh: "The proposition constitutive of the dogma
of the Trinity — the propositions in the symbols of Nice, Con-
stantinople and Toledo, relative to the immanent distinctions
and relations in the Godhead — were not drawn directly from the
New Testament, and could not be expressed in New Testament
terms. They were the product of reason speculating on a
revelation to faith — the New Testament representation of
God as a Father, a Redeemer and a Sanctifier— with a view to
conserve and vindicate, explain and comprehend it. They were
only formed through centuries of effort, only elaborated by the
aid of the conceptions, and formulated in the terms (f Greek and
Roman metaphysics^* The same authority says: "The massive
defense of theism, erected by the Cambridge school of philos-
ophy, against atheism, fatalism, and the denial of moral dis-
tinctions, was avowedly built on a Platonic foundation."

In method of thought also, no less than in conclusions, the
most influential of the Christian fathers on these subjects fol-
lowed the Greek philosophers rather than the writers of the New

118 THE **MORMON** DOCTRINE OP DEITY.

Testament.*' **Platonism, and Aristotelianisin," says the author of
the History oj Christian Doctrine,^' exerted more influence upon
the intellectual methods of men, taking in the whole time since
their appearance, than all other systems combined. They cer-
tainly influenced the Greek mind, and Grecian culture, more
than all the other philosophical systems. They re-appear in
Roman philosophy — so far as Rome had any philosophy. We
shall see that Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, exerted more in-
fluence than all other philosophical minds united, upon the
greatest of the Christian Fathers: upon the greatest of the
Schoolmen; and upon the theologians of the Reformation, Cal-
vin and Melanchthon. And if we look at European philosophy
as it has been uofolded in England, Germany and France, we
shall perceive that all the modern theistic schools have dis-
cussed the standing problems of human reason, in very much the
same manner in which the reason of Plato and Aristotle discussed
them twenty-two centuries ago. Bacon, Des Cartes, Leibnitz,
and Kant, so far as the first principles of intellectual and moral
philosophy are concerned, agree with their Grecian pre-
decessors. A student who has mastered the two systems of
the Adifcdemy and Lyceum will find in modern philosophy (with
the exception of the department of natural science) very little
that is true, that may not bd found for substance, and germin-
ally, in the Greek theism."t

It is hoped that enough is said here to establish the fact

•Especially compare Plato's methods of arising from the con-
ception of the finite and variable, to the infinite and unchangeable;
from the relatively beautiful and good, to the absolutely beautiful
and gooj, in the sixth and seventh books of the "Republic," with St.
Augustine's manner of arriving at the conception of *'That which is**
— God. — Confessions St, August iney book seven.

t History of Christian Doctrine, by William G. T. Shedd;
Vol. I, p. 52.

THE "mormon'* doctrine OP DEITY. 119

that the conception of God as **pure being/' "immaterial,"
"without form," "or parts or passions," as held by orthodox
Christianity, has its origin in Pagan philosophy, not in Jewish
nor Christian revelation.

Of Jesus Christ Being Both Premise and Argument against
Mr. Van Der DonckVs ^'Philosophical Argument/*

And now as to the whole question of God being "existence,"
"pure being," "most simple," "not compound;" also his "immu-
tability," as set forth in Mr. Van Der Donckt's "philosophical
argument." What of it ? This of it: Whatever "feimplicity,"
"immutability," or other quality that is ascribed to God, must
be in harmony with what Jesus Christ is: I meet Mr. V's "phil-
osophical argument" as I meet his scriptural argument. I ap-
peal to the being and nature of Jesus Christ, as a refutation of
his philosophical conclusions. Is Jesus Christ God ? "Yes,"
must be my friend's answer. Very well, this is my premise.
Jesus is God in his own right and person, and he is a revelation
of what God the Father is. He is not only a revelation of the
being of God, but of the kind of being God is. And now I test
Mr. V's argument by the revelation of what God is, as revealed
in the person and nature of the Son of God. While I am doing
BO, let it be remembered that Jesus is now and will ever be
what he was at the time of his glorious arcension from the
midst of his disciples on Mount Olivet — God, possessed of all
power in heaven and in earth, a glorious personage of flesh and
bone and spirit. And now, is Jesus Christ without form ? No;
he is in form like man. Is Jesus Christ illimitable ? Not as to
his glorious body; that has limitations, dimensions, proportions.
Is Jesus Christ without parts ? Not as to his person; his body
is made up of limbs, trunk, head; and parenthetically I may re-
mark, a whole without parts is inconceivable. Then it follows
that God's "infinity," so far as it is spoken of in scripture, does

120 THE "mormon" doctrine of deity.

not refer to his person, but evidently to the attributes of his
mind — to his intelligence, wisdom, power, patience, mercy, and
whatsoever other qualities of mind or spirit he may possess. If
it is argued that it is illogical and unphilosophical to regard
God in his person as finite, but infinite in faculties, that is finite
in one respect and infinite in another, my answer is that it is a
conception of God made necessary by what the divine wisdom
has revealed concerning himself, and it is becoming in man to
accept with humility what God has been pleased to reveal con-
cerning his own nature, being assured that in God's infinite
knowledge he knows himself, and that which he reveals con-
cerning himself is to be trusted far beyond man's philosophical
conception of him.

But to resume our inquiry: Is Jesus Christ immutable, un-
changeable ? Is he Plato's "that which always is and has no
becoming ?" or Mr. Van Der Donckt's "necessary Being * * *
that cannot change with regard to his existence, nor can he
change with regard to hia mode of existence," and therefore
could never be anything other than he was from eternity ? It
is inconceivable how any being can be a son and not have a be-
ginning as such. Whatever of eternity may be ascribed to the
existence of the Lord Jesus, he must have had a beginning as a
son; that term implies a relation, let it be brought about how it
may, and that relation must have had a beginning. While there
may never have been a time when Jesus was not in respect of
his existence as an Intelligence, there must have been a time
when he was not as "Son." So that he doubtless became "Son,"
hence changed his relation from not Son to Son; hence changed
in his relations, in his mode of existence. We know there
was a time when he was not man, that is, not man of flesh and
bone made of the materials of this world; and he became man;
another change. There was a time when he was mortal man,
by which I mean, man subject to death; and he became, and is

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 121

now, immortal man; another change. There was a time when
all power in heaven and in earth was ^'giverC* to him; (Matt. 28:
18) hence, there must have been a time when he did not possess
it; hence another change, a change from the condition of hold-
ing some power to that of possessing all power. These facts
attested by Holy Writ are against Mr. V's doctrine of God's
"immutability," so far at least as relates to the impossibility of
changing bis mode of existence. And if Mr. V's doctrine of
the "immutability" of God means that God cannot change in his
relations, then I put these facts in the career of the Lord Jesus
against his argument, and say that not only did Jesus pass
through these changes of conditions and relations, but that God
the Father could, and very likely did, pass through similar rela-
tions and changes. Else of what significance are the following
passages.^

The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father
do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son like-
wise (St. John 5: 19).

The Prophet Joseph Smith quoting the substance of St. John
5: 26, also says:

"As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son
power" — to do what ? Why, what the Father did. The answer is
obvious — in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again.
"Jesus, what are you going to do ?" "To lay down my body as my
Father did, and take it up again.'' Do you believe it ? If you do
not believe it, you do not believe the Bible.*

It is the accepted doctrine of the orthodox Christian
creeds that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is as the Father is —
(Creed of St. Athanasius) that is, of the same nature and essence.
Very well, then; as God, the Father, begot Jesus, the Son, may
not the Son in time also beget a son or sons? Or, after

*MiUennial Star, Vol. 23: p. 247.

8

122 THE "mormon" doctrine op DEITY

ascribing to the Son the same nature and the same power as is
ascribed to the Father, will onr orthodox friends insist upon
limiting the Son by denying him productive virtue, and contend
that Jesus must endure without the exercise of it? If the
existence of the Son was essential to the perfection of God, the
Father — and it cannot be thought of in any other light — may it
not be, since the Son is of the same nature as the Father, that
the fact of fatherhood is necessary to the perfection of the
Son? To deny him the power of attaining it would be to
limit his power, which may not be done even according to
orthodox Christian doctrine. Is it not likely, nay, would it not
be so? that the same cause or impulse, or necessity, or what
influence or consideration soever it was that led God, the
Father, to beget a Son, create a world, and provide for its
redemption, would impel the Son, since he is of the same
nature as the Father, to do these same things? And where was
the beginning of such proceedings? and where will be the end
of them?

But now, to resume again our measuring of Mr. V's phil-
osophy by Jesus Christ as God.

Is Jesus Christ without passions? No; his deathless love
for his friends, so beautifully manifested by word and deed
throaghout his mortal life, together with his love for mankind,
which led him to give his life for the world, as also his ex-
plicitly declared hatred of that which is sin and evil, forbid us
thinking of him as without passions.* As in him dwelt "all the
fulness of the Godhead bodily," so in him necessarily are
gathered all these qualities, attributes and perfections that go
to the making of God. Does possession of these qualities,
together with Messiah's mode of existence in the form and
person of Jesus Christ, come in conflict with the notion of God's

' God is angry with the wicked every day (Ps 7: 11.)

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 123

'^simplicity," "immutability." and "eternity," as conceived by
philosophers? So much the worse, then, for the faulty and
merely human conceptions of those qualities, as relating to God.
Better mistrust the accuracy of metaphysical reasoning; better
throw aside Plato and his philosophy as untrustworthy, than to
be moved ever so slightly from the great truth of revelation
that Jesus, the Messiah, is God; and that such as he is, God is,
as to essence, attributes, existence, and the mode of existence.
Jesus Christ, then, once accepted as God, and the manifestation
of God to men, is a complete answer to Mr. Van Der Donckt's
philosophical argument for the absolute "simplicity" or "spiri-
tuality" or "immutability" of God.

More of Mr. Van Der DonckCs ''Philosophy.**

I must not neglect Mr. Van Der Donckt's "philosophy" that
forbids us believing that "several finite things" can "produce
an infinite, or an illimitable, as there would always be a first and
last." Also his "finite parts could not belong to the infinite
essence, else they would communicate their limitations to
God." Also, his "many infinite beings are inconceivable; for, if
there were several, they would have to differ from each other
by some perfection." And his "from the moment one would
have a perfection, the other one lacks, the latter would not
be infinite. Therefore, God cannot be a compound of infinite
parts."

Can any one, can Mr. Van Der Donckt himself, be quite
sure of all this? Who knows how the infinite is constituted?
When men speak of the infinite, are they not treating of that
which is beyond the comprehension of the mind of man, at least
in his present state of limited intellectual powers; for whatever
may be the heights to which the mind of man may rise, when
freed from his present earth-bound conditions, here and now
he must recognize his intellectual limitations: for, as in Christ's

124 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

humiliation (i. e. in his earth-life) his judgment was taken away
(Acts 8: 33), that is, his divine, supreme, intellectual and
spiritual powers were veiled — ^so with man, in this same world
of trial and limitations. Whatever his power as an eternal
Intelligence may have been, or what it may be hereafter, he is
now compelled to admit that he sees but as through a glass
darkly, and therefore imperfectly. Men, I hold, though they
be philosophers, cannot comprehend the infinite, much less say
how it is constituted. But let us reflect a little upon the several
propositions Mr. V. submits to us:

1 — ^'Several finite beings cannot produce the infinite.*^
So far as it is possible for the human intellect to conceive
the infinite, the material universe is infinite, eternal, without
beginning and without end. It is inconceivable that the universe
could have had a beginning, could have been produced from
nothing. "All the apparent proofs," remarks Herbert Spencer,
"that something can come out of nothing, a wider knowledge
has one by one cancelled. The comet that is suddenly dis-
covered in the heavens and nightly waxes larger, is proved not
to be a newly created body, but a body that was until lately
beyond the range of vision. The cloud which in course of a few
minutes forrrs in the sky, consists not of substance that has
just begun to be, but of substance that previously existed in a
more diffused and transparent form. And similarly with a
crystal or precipitate in relation to the fluid depositing it*'
(First Prin., p. 177.) Mr. Spencer holds it "impossible to think
of nothing becoming something/' for the reason that "nothing"
cannot become an object of consciousness (Ibid pp. 161-2.) In
like manner, he holds that matter is indestructible, and hence,
that the universe cannot be annihilated. "The doctrine that
matter is indestuctible has become a common-place," he remarks.
"The seeming annihilations of matter turn out, on close observa-
tion, to be only changes of state. It is found that the evaporated

ME "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 125

water, though it has become invisible, may be brought by
condensations to its orginal shape." The indestructibility of
matter, Mr. Spencer holds to be a datum of consciousness, which
he thus illustrates:

Conceive the space before you to be cleared of all bodies save
one. Now imagine the remaining one not to be removed from its
place, but to lapse into nothing while standing in that place. You
fail. The place that was solid you cannot conceive becoming empty,
save by the transfer of that which made it solid ♦ * ♦ However
small the bulk to which we conceive a piece of matter reduced, it is
impossible to conceive it reduced into nothing. While we can rep-
resent to ourselves the parts the matter as approximated, we can-
not represent to ourselves the quantity of matter as made less. To
do this would be to imagine some of the constituent parts compressed
into nothing; which is no more possible than to imagine compression
of the whole into nothing. Our inability to conceive matter becoming
non-existent, is immediately consequent on the nature of thought.
Thought consists in the establishment of relations. There can be no
relation established, and therefore no thought framed, when one of
the related terms is absent from consciousness. Hence, it is im-
possible to think of something becoming nothing, for the same reason
that it is imposible to think of nothing becoming someting. (First
Prin., p. 181.)

The material universe, then, is eternal, it always existed,
and how many changes soever it may pass through, it will
never be annihilated. Not one atom can be added to the
sum total of its substance, nor one blotted out of existence-
it is everywhere existing, and, so far as the mind of man can
conceive "infinity," it is infinite. Yet we know that this whole
is made up of a great variety of substances and objects which
are finite; and our philosophers, for the most part, hold that
matter is divisable into ultimate atoms. Not that such a fact
has been demonstrated or is demonstrable; but granted the
existence of mattar, its existence as an aggregation of such

126 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

ultimate things as atoms seems to be a necessary truth. I say
necessary truth, because the mind of man cannot conceive to
the contrary, and hence, science assumes matter to be composed
of aioms. But atoms are things — material things; and in the
mind must necessarily be thought of as having dimensions — an
upper and lower part, also a hither and thither side; or if
spherical then a circumference and diameter; in other words,
atoms are finite, material things, and in the aggregate consti-
tute the material universe, which, so far as the wit of man
can conceive, is infinite; and hence, we may say the infinite uni-
verse is composed of finite atoms; or, several finite things —
Mr. V's philosophy to the contrary notwitbttanding — produce
the infinite.

2 — ''Many infinite beings are inconceivable; Jor if there were
several, they would have to differ Jrom each other by some perfec-
tion. Now, the moment one would have a perfection the other one
lacks, the latter would not be infinite,"

That may be true in relation to absolute "infinity." But
we have already seen that God cannot be considered as abso-
lutely infinite, because we are taught by the facts of revelation
that absolute infinity cannot hold as to God; as a person, God
has limitations, and that which has limitations is not absolutely
infinite. If God 7S conceived of as absolutely infinite, in his
substance as in his attributes, then all idea of personality re-
specting him must be given up; for personality implies limita-
tions. If the idea of personality in respect of God be retained,
then the idea of absolute infinity regarding him must be
abandoned. That "infinite" which does not include all things
and all qualities is not absolutely infinite. The only persons
who consistently hold to the absolute infinity of God are those
who identify God with the universe — regarding God and the
universe as one and the same. So long as orthodox Christians

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 127

regard God as distinct from what they call the "material uni-
verse," that long they teach but a modified infinity respecting
God. They really mean that God is only infinite **afler his
kind'* One of Spinoza's definitions may help us here. He says
a thing is finite after its kind **when it nan be limited by another
thing oj the same nature,' as one body is limited by another
(Ethics Def . ii.) is not a thing infinite after its kind, then, when
it is 710^ limited by anything of the same nature? Is not this the
necessary corollary of Spinoza's definition of the "finite after
its kind?" and do not those who regard God as distinct from
the universe, and at the same time ascribe "infinity to him,
mean only that he is infinite "after his kind?" There may be,
then, many infinites after their kind; and this view is sustained
by the fact that such infinites do exist. Duration or time is in-
finite after its kind, because not limited by anything of the same
nature. Space is infinite after its kind, for the same reason;
so, too, are force and matter. If there may be two or four
things infinite after their kind, because not limited by anything
of the same nature, are many infinites inconceivable? More-
over, when infinity is thus understood — and it can be under-
stood when relating to God in no other way — the difiiculty
raised by the latter part of Mr. V's proposition, viz., that, if
there were several infinite beings, they would differ from each
other by some perfection, and when one would have a perfec-
tion that the other lacked, the latter would not be infinite,
etc. — disappears; for when beings are infinite after their kind,
they are only limited by things of a different nature, and there-
fore the perfections possessed by those beings of a different
nature will constitute no limitation to their infinity.

3 — "7f one is infinite nothing can be added to it*'

This maybe true of the absolutely infinite; for that which
is absolutely infinite must be the sum total of all existence.

128 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

To say, therefore, that something existed in addition to this
sum total, and could be added to it, would be illogical. But
infinity in this conception cannot be ascribed to God; for we
have seen that God is only infinite in faculties and power, not
in person, hence not absolutely infinite; therefore, this state-
ment in the gentleman's philosophy can have no bearing on the
controversy in which we are engaged.

4 — ^* Finite parts could not belong to the infinite essence, else they
would communicate their limitations to God.**

When the Son of God, Jesus, took on a human body of
flesh and bone, was not that which is finite, his body, added to
the infinite in Jesus Christ? Did the finite body, taken on by
the spirit of Jesus, communicate its limitations to God? And
is Jesus, now in his resurrected, immortal body of flesh and
bones, less **infinite" than before his spirit was united to his
body? If one accepts Mr. V's doctrine of the absolute infinity
of God, then one must believe that Jesus "the Word," who "was
in the beginning with God," who "was God" — was not "made
flesh;" that is, did not take on a body of flesh and bone; for
the body of Jesus was finite; it had, in fact, all the limitations
of a man's body, and Mr. V's doctrine tells us that "i/ one is in-
iinitey nothing can be added to it — therefore the "Word," who "was
God," could not have been made flesh. If, on the other hand,
one accepts the fact, so well attested by holy scriptures, viz.,
that Jesus, "the Word," "who was God," was made flesh, did
take on a body that was flesh and bones, even though that body
was finite, then one must reject the philosophy of Mr. V., which
says the infinite may not take on finite parts, for the reason
that they would communicate their limitations to the infinite,
and thus destroy its infinity.

It is not difficult to see that something is wrong with the
philosophy of Mr. Van DerDonckt, which thus constantly brings

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 129

US in conflict with the revelations of God in the scriptures, and
especially in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

In what state do these considerations leave the argument?
Mr. Van Der Donckt reaches the conclusion, from the premise
that several finite things cannot produce the infinite, that God
cannot be a compound of finite parts. Yet we have seen that
what is called the material universe, so far as it is possible for
the mind of man to apprehend infinity, answers to his concep-
tion of the infinite; and we know that the universe is made up
of finite parts; and that in its last analysis it is but the
aggregation of finite atoms.

From the premise that many infinite beings are inconceivable,
Mr. V. reaches the conclusion that God cannot be a compound
of infinite parts. But upon principles of sound reason, we have
seen that things are infinite after their kind when not limited
by anything of the same nature; and his premise of a number of
infinites being inconceivable is destroyed by the actual existence
of a number of infinites after their kind, such as duration, space,
matter, spirit, and hence the absolute infinite, if existing at all,
must be composed of an aggregation of infinities after their
kind.

Prom the premise that ij one is infinite nothing can be added
to it, the gentleman implies the conclusion that God is infinite
and therefore nothing can be added to him. Still, since Jesus
was the Word, and the Word was and is God, we have seen that
something was added to whatever of infinity there was in God,
the Word, viz,, what orthodox Christians call his "humanity" —
that is, the pre-existent, divine spirit of Jesus took on a taber-
nacle of flesh — something finite was added to tlie infinite of God,
the Word, and that, too, let me say, without communicating any
limitations to the infinity possessed of God.

On these several premises, Mr. Van Der Donckt bases his
general conclusion: —

130 THE "MORUiON" DOCTRINE OP DEITY.

Therefore, the infinite Being is not composite, but simple or
spiritual. Therefore, he is not, nor ever was, a man, who is a com-
posite being.

But since the premises themselves have been shown to be
utterly untenable, as relating to God, as revealed in the scrip-
tures, and in the person and nature of Jesus Christ, the conclu-
sions are wrong; and the facts established are that while God
in mind, faculties and in power is doubtless infinite, in person he
is finite; and as his spirit is united to a body, he is composite, not
simple; and as Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh, the
express image of God the Father's person, the counterpart of
his nature, and yet at the same time was a man — it is neither
unscriptural, nor unphilosophical to hold that God, even the
Father, is also a perfected, exalted man.

III.

MR. VAN DER DONCKT'S CONTRASTS BETWEEN MAN AND GOD.

Of the Intellectual Powers of Man.

Mr. Van Der Donckt insists that man can never become a
God, because he ''is finite or limited in evary thing; ever change-
able and changing, ever susceptible of improvement." Grant-
ing that man is ever susceptible of improvement, ought not the
gentleman to proceed with some caution before dogmatically as-
serting that there are to be limitations to man's enlargement,
to his progress, and to his attainments ? Given the susceptibil-
ity to improve, never ending duration through which the pro-
cesses of improvement shall continue, and God to direct such pro-
cesses, who can dogmatize upon the limitations of the Intelli-
gences now known as men ? It is not enough to say in reply to
this that the "finite can never become infinite;" nor to argue that
if God were an exalted man he would possess contradictory at-
tributes, such as being both finite and infinite, compound and

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 131

simple. We have already seen that when one undertakes to
treat of the infinite, he is dealing with the unknown, dealing
with terms that stand for the names of things of which the
mind can form no adequate or satisfactory conception. But so
far as the Father and the Son are concerned — personages held
out to us in the scriptures as Gods — we have seen (p. 119) that ab-
solute infinity may not be predicted of them. In person, form and
the general nature of their physical being, they have limitations;
and whatever of iDfinity or simplicity is ascribed to them must
be ascribed to mind and attributes, not to personality. Seeing
then, that the revelation of God in the scriptures, and especially
in the revelation of God in the person and character of Jesus
Christ, forces upon us a concep.ion of God that represents him
as concrete rather than abstract, finite in some respects, and
infinite in others; and as compound rather than simple — it fol-
lows that urging the apparent absurdity of such characteristics
in Deity as these is of no avail against the facts in the revela-
tions God has given of himself. And now, as the limitations
found in man, as to his physical person, nature, etc.,— and which
are supposed by Mr. V. to forever bar man from attaining
divinity — are found also in God the Father and in God the Son,
it is quite clear that these physical limitations may not be urged
as insuperarable obstacles to man attaining divinity. As
for the spirit of man — the mind — who can say what its metes
and bounds are, much less what they shall be? Who com-
prehends its powers ? Who dare say that it is not potentially
infinite? and shall be hereafter actually infinite after its
kind? I have already called attention to the fact that it
id said of Messiah that in bis humiliation, his judgment was
taken away, which doubtless means that in his earthlife his
intellectual and spiritual powers were somewhat veiled; and
with man doubtless it is the same; in his earth-life that in-
tellectual excellence which he enjoyed as a spirit in the man-

132 THE "mormon'* doctrine op deity.

sions of the Father is veiled; but veiled as it is, there is of its
manifestations sufficient to inspire one with awe, and make him
hesitate ere pronouncing dogmatically upon its nature or its lim-
itations. To illustrate my thought: I am this moment sit-
ting at my desk, and am enclosed by the four walls of my room
— limited as to my personal presence to this spot. But by the
mere act of my will, I find I have the power to. project myself
in thought to any part of the world. Instantly I can be in the
crowded streets of the world's metropolis. I walk through its
well remembered thoroughfares, I hear the rush and roar of its
busy multitudes, the rumble of vehicles, the huckster's cries,
the cab-man's calls, sharp exclamations and quick retorts in
the jostling throngs, the beggar's piping cry, the sailor's song,
fragments of conversation, broken strains of music, the blare
of trumpets, the neighing of horses, ear-piercing whistles,
ringing of bells, shouts, responses, rushing trains and all
that mingled din and soul-stirring roar that rises in clamor
above the great town's traffic.

At will, I leave all this and stand alone on mountain tops
in Syria, India, or overlooking old N?le's valley, wrapped in the
awful grandeur of solemn silence. Here I may bid fallen em-
pires rise and pass in grand procession before my mental vision
and live again their little lives: fight once more their battles;
begin again each petty struggle for place, for power, for control
of the world's affairs; revive their customs: li7e again their
loves and hates, and preach once more their religions and their
philosophies — all this the mind may do» and that as easily and
as quickly as in thought it may leave this room, cross the
street to a neighbor's home, and there take note of the familiar
objects within his habitation. Nor does this begin to indicate
all the power of the mind in these respects. Though the sun is
ninety-two millions of miles away, on the instant, in thought,
one may stand upon it within its resplendent atmosphere. In the

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 133

same manner and with equal ease, one may project himself to
the Pole Star, though it is so distant that it requires forty years
for a ray of light to pass through the intervening space be-
tween that star and our earth, and still light travels at the
rate of one hundred and eighty-six thousand miles per second !
Nor is the end yet. In like manner and with equal ease one
may instantly project himself in thought from within the four
walls of his room to those more distant constellations of stars
known to exist out in the depths of space, whence it would re-
quire a ray of light a million years to reach our earth; yet
standing there in a world so distant from ours, one would find
himself still centered in the universe, and out beyond him, in a
straight line from the earth whence he has traveled, would ex-
tend other realms in splendor no less magnificent. From the
vasty deep of these realms, he could call up other worlds, and
people them with creatures of his thought, as one may call up
empires to pass in mighty procession before him in the Nile or
in the Ganges valley.

Distance, then, to the mind of man, is as nothing. The
infinity of extension, and of duration also, is matched by the
infiniteness of man's mind, though that mind has a local habita-
tion and a name within a tabernacle of flesh and bone. This is
but a glimpse at the infinite powers of the mind of man in one
direction, and under circumstances that somewhat veil the
splendor of his intellectual and spiritual glory; what those
powers may be in all particulars when man shall be made free
from the restricting and depressing environment of the present
earth-life, no one may say; but enough may be seen from what
is here pointed out to establish the firm belief that, as the
intellectual powers in man rise to match the infinitudes of
extension and duration, as indicated, so, too, in all other respects
shall the mind of man, when free, rise to the harmony of all the
infinities that make up the universe. And it is not inconceiv-

134 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

able (in view of the great spiritual and intellectual powers even
now discernible in him) that the time will come when man will
not only be able to project himself in thought to any part of
the universe, no matter how distant, but in his future immeas-
urably exalted state he may project both thought and con-
sciousness equally to all points of the universe at once, stead-
fasti] maintain them there, and thus be all-knowing, everywhere
present in thought, in consciousness — in spirit in fact — as God
now is; and if, as it is reasonable to believe will be the case,
his power equals his knowledge; and his freedom of volition
equals his knowledge and his power — then, indeed, will man be
a spiritual and intellectual force immanent in the universe, both
to will and to do, even as God.

Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one with each
other even as he and the Father are one (St. John 17: 11); that
they all might be one; and as the Father was in Christ, and as
Christ was in the Father, so also would Messiah have the
disciples to be one in him and in the Father, that they might
all be one with the Father and the Son, and with each other,
even as the Father and the Son are one (St. John 17:21, 22.) But
for the disciples to be "one" with the Father and the Son, in
the complete sense in which the Messiah here prayed for that
"oneness," necessarily means to be "like" the Father, and that
"likeness" can rise to the full height of its perfection only when
it reaches equality with those with whom the disciples are to be
"one" or "like." If man may not rise to the height of divinity,
how shall this prayer of the Christ be realized? Or must we
believe that the divine wisdom in the Son of God exercised
itself in praying for that which is unattainable, that which
is not only absurd but impossible? It is unthinkable that the
divine nature shall be brought down to be "one" with men; so
that if the "cneness" which also involves "likeness," be realized,
in fulfilment of Messiah's parayer, it must be by men rising to

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 135

divinity, Mr. Van Der Donckt's "impossibilities" to the contrary
notwithstanding.

"Behold the Man Has Become as One of Us J*

To illustrate his contention that man can never rise to the
quality of divinity, Mr. Van Der Donckt indulges in comparisons
between man and God; and, to emphasize that contrast, chal-
lenges well-known men of science to the exercise of creative
powers, contrasts the frequent collisions upon our railroads with
the order, regularity, and safety of the movements among the
planetary systems where never a collision occurs; and then
indulges in such folly as this:

They [astronomers] can indeed predict transits and eclipses; but
suppose astronomers from New Zealand, on their way to America to
observe this fall's moon eclipse, meet with an accident in mid-ocean,
would they at once send this wireless telegram to the United States'
stargazers assembled say at Lick Observatory: "Belated by leak.
Please retard eclipse two hours that we may not miss it." As well might
all the telescope men in the world combined, attempt to fetch down
the rings of Saturn for the construction of a royal race track, as pretend
to control movements of the heavenly bodies.

The gentleman also points out how precarious are the
powers of man:

The helpless babe of yesterday may indeed rival Mozart, Haydn,
and Paderewski, but tomorrow he may rise with lame hands and
pierced ear-drums; and millions of worshipers of the shattered idol
are powerless to restore it to the musical world.

This part of the gentleman's argument sinks far below the
general high level of his Reply, and is uiiworthy of his
intelligence. I have already pointed out (p. 93), that
Latter-day Saints do not teach that man in his present state
and condition is a God. On the contrary, they admit man's

136 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

narrowness, weakness, imperfections and limitations; and also re-
cognize the great gulf stretching between man in his present state
and that dignity of divinity to which somewhere and sometime
in the eternities it is within his province arid power to attain.
Mr. Van Der Donckt's comparisons, therefore, between God and
man, in the latter's present condition, are not in point, for the
reason that the Latter-day Saints do not claim that man is now
a Deity, only as he may be thought potentially one. Taking
the highest type of man to start with, consider him as raised
from the dead and hence immortal; give him Gods for guides,
teachers, and companions, with the universe for the field of his
operations, then let Mr. V. or anyone else, say what man's attain-
ments will be one thousand millions of years hence; and that
period, let it be remembered, long as it may seem to man's petty
methods of computing duration, is but as a moment in the
existence of an immortal being. Let Mr. Van Der Donckt
institute his comparisons from that point of man's career,
instead of from the present point of man's weakness and
mortality, and then say if ultimately divinity seems so unattain-
able as now. If he shall say he is unable to institute his
comparisons at the point proposed, because what man will
then be is unknown, I shall agree with him; but let him
acknowledge, as perforce he must, that man will be immeasur-
ably advanced beyond what he is now; also let him admit
the injustice he does our doctrine by insisting upon making
his comparisons between God and man as the latter now
stands, under the effects of the fall, and in his humiliation and
weakness.

After indulging in the aforesaid comparisons, Mr.V. further
remarks:

I fear Mr. B. H. Roberts will be inclined to think God jealous
because he gives man no show for comparison with him. This would
certainly be a less blunder of the Utah man, (**I will not give my

THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 137

glory to another" — Isaiah 42: 8) than his contention, which is a
mere echo of Satan's promise in Paradise: "Yon shall be as Gods."
(Genesis 3: 5.)

To which I answer, not so; the contention of the "Utah
man" is not the echo of Satan's promise, "ye shall be as
Gods." On the contrary the "Utah man's" contention is
bottomed on the auguiit and sure word of God, uttered in
Eden, when he said of the man Adam — ^'Behold the man is
become as one oj us, to know good and eviU' (Genesis 3: 22) —
a passage which the Reverend gentleman seems to have over-
looked.

IV.

OP THE UNITY OF GOD.

There remains to be considered the Unity of God.

The Latter day Saints believe in the unity of the creative
and governing force or power of the universe as absolutely as
any orthodox Christian sect in the world. One cannot help
being profoundly impressed with the great truth that creation,
throughout its whole extent, bears evidence of being one
system, presents at every point unity of design, and har-
mony in its government. Nor am I unmindful of the force
there is in the deduction usually drawn from these premises,
viz., that the Creator and Governor of the universe, must neces-
sarily be one. But I am also profoundly impressed by another
fact that comes within the experience of man, at least
to a limited extent, viz., the possibility of intelligences arriving
at perfect agreement, so as to act in absolute unity. We see
manifestations of this principle in human governments, and
other human associations of various kinds. And this, too, is
observable, viz., that, the greater and more perfect the intel-
ligence the more perfect can the unity of purpose and of effort
become: so that one needs only the existence of perfect intel-

9

138 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

ligences to operate together in order to secure perfect oneness,
whence shall come the one system evident in the universe,
exhibiting at every point unity of design, and perfect harmony
in its government. In other words, "oneness" can be the result
of perfect agreement among Many Intelligences as surely as it
can be the result of the existence of One Only Intelligence.
Also, the decrees and purposes of the perfectly united Many
can be as absolute as the decrees and purposes of the One Only
Intelligence. One is also confronted with the undeniable fact
that inclines him to the latter view as the reasonable explana-
tion of the "Oneness" that is evidently in control of the
universe — the fact that there are in existence many Intelligences,
and, endowed as they are with free will, it cannot be denied that
they ivfluencCy to some extent, the course of events and the con-
ditions that obtain. Moreover, it will be found, on cartful inquiry,
that the explanation of the "Oneness" controlling in the
universe, on the theory that it results from the perfect agree-
ment or unity of Many Intelligences,* is more in harmony with
the revelations of God on the subject than the theory that
there is but One Only Intelligence that enters into its govern-
ment. This theory Mr. Van Der Donckt, of course, denies, and
this is the issue between us that remains to be tested.

The Reverend gentleman affirms that the first chapter of
the Bible "reveals the supreme fact that there is but One Only
and Living God." This I deny; and affirm the fact that the first

* John Stuart Mill, in his Essay on Theism, in speaking of the
evident unity in nature, which suggests that nature is governed by
One Being, comes very near stating the exact truth in an alternative
statement to his first remark, viz.: "At least, if a plurality be sup-
posed, it is necessary to assume so complete a concert of action and
unity of will among them, that the difference is for most purposes
immaterial between such a theory and that of the absolute unity of
the Godhead" (Essays on Religion — Theism,^. 133).

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 139

chapter of the iBible reveals the existence of a plurality of
Gods.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the word trans-
lated "God" in the first chapter of our English version of the
Bible, in the Hebrew, is tlohim — plural of Eloah — and should be
rendered "Gods" — so as to read "In the beginning the Gods
created the heavens and the earth," etc. * * * The Gods said,
"Let there be light." * * * The Gods said "Let us make
man," etc., etc. So notorious is the fact that the Hebrew plural,
Elohim, is used by Moses, that a variety of devices have been
employed to make the first chapter of Genesis conform to
the "One Only God" idea. Some Jews in explananation of
it, and in defense of their belief in One Only God, hold
that there are several Hebrew words which have a plural form
but singular meaning — of which Elohim is one— and they quote
as proof of this the word maim, meaning water, shamaim,
meaning heaven, and panim, meaning the face or surface of a
* person or thing. "But," says a Christian Jewish scholar, * "if
we examine these words, we shall find that though apparently
they may have a singular meaning, yet, in reality, they have a
plural or collective one; thus, for instance, *maim/ water, means
a collection of waters, forming one collective whole; and thus
again 'shamaim,* heaven, is also, in reality as well as form, of
the plural number, meaning what we call in a similar way in
English, *the heavens;' comprehending all fche various regions
which are included under that title."

Other Jewish scholars content themselves in accounting
for this inconvenient plural in the opening chapter of Genesis,

* This is Rev. fl. Highton, M. A., and Fellow of Queen's College,
Oxford. I quote from his lecture on "God a Unity and Plurality,"
published in a Christian Jewish periodical called The Voice of Israel,
February number, 1844.

140 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

by saying that in the Hebrew, Elohim better represents the
idea of "Strong," "Mighty," than the singular form would, and
for this reason it was used — a view accepted by not a few
Christians. Thus, Dr. Elliott, Professor of Hebrew in Lafayette
College, Easton, Pennsylvania, says: "The name Elohim (singu-
lar hloah) is the generic name of God, and, being plural in form,
is probably a plural of excellence and majesty." * Dr. Haver-
nick derives the word Elohim from a Hebrew root now lo^iyColuiU
and thinks that the plural is used merely to indicate the abund-
ance and super-richness contained in the divine Being, f Kabbi
Jehuda Hallevi (twelfth century) found in the usage of the
plural Elohim a protest against idolaters, who call each person-
ified power Eloah and all collectively Elohim. "He interpreted
it as the most general name of the Deity, distinguishing him as
manifested in the exhibition of his power without reference to
his personality or moral qualities, or any special relations which
he bears to man." % A number of Christian scholars attempt
to account for the use of the plural Elohim by saying that it
foreshadows the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, that is, it rec-
ognizes the existence of the three persons in one God. "It is
expressive of omnipotent power; and by its use here (first chap.
Genesis) in the plural form is obscurely taught at the opening
of the Bible, a doctrine clearly revealed in other parts of it, viz.,
that though God is one, there is a plurality of persons in the
Godhead — Father, Son and Spirit, who were engaged in the
creative work." § This view was maintained at length by Rev.
H. Highton, in the Christian Jewish periodical. The Voice of

* "Vindication of Mosaic Authorship of Pentateuch," p. 65.
t See "Kitto*s Biblical Literature/' Art. "God," Vol. 1, p. 777.
X Smith's Bible Diet. (Hackett edition), Art. Jehovah, p. 1242.
§ "Critical and Explanatory Commentary" (Jamieson, Faussett
and Brown) Gen. 1:1,2.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 141

Israel, before quoted. "But Calvin, Mercer, Dresius and
Ballarmine," says Dr. Hackett,* of the Theological Institution
of Newton, Massachusetts — editor of Smith's Bible Dictionary —
"have given the- weight of their authority against an explanation
so fanciful and arbitrary."

Others explain the use of the plural "we" or **U8," by say-
ing that in the first chapter of Genesis Moses represents God as
speaking of himself in that manner, in imitation of the custom
of kings, who speak of themselves as "we," instead of in the
singular, "I." In other words, it is the royal "we," or "us."
This theory, however, is answered, as pointed out by Rev. H.
Highton, by the fact that the use of what is called the "royal
plural" is a modern, not an ancient, custom; and reference to
the usage of the kings of the Bible discloses the fact that they
always speak of themselves as "I" or "me," not as "we" or
"us." t

Modem Bible criticism, usually denominated "The Higher
Criticism," is to a great extent — so far as criticism of the five
books of Moses is concerned — based upon the exclusive use of
the plural Elphim in one section, and the use of Jehovah,
singular, in another. "The Pentateuch, therefore, it is asserted, is
composed of two different documents, the one Elohistic, and
the other Jehovistic, consequently it cannot be the work of a
single author."J

With the various devices for accounting for the use of
the plural form Elohim in the first chapter of the Bible, I have
nothing to do here. They are simply pointed out as showing

♦ Smith's Bible Dictionary (Hackett edition), Art. Jehovah, Vol.
2, p. 1242.

t Voice of Israel, p. 95.

J "Vindication of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch'* (Elliott)
p. 64.

142 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

the wide recognition that is given to the fact of the use of the
plural form hlohim that should be rendered in English **God8;"
and also the perplexity the use of this plural occasions among
those whose principles call upon them to harmonize its use with
the belief in "One Only God." Mr. Van Der Donckt admits the
use of the plural Elohim, but undertakes to explain away the
force of its use as follows:

Whenever Elohim occDrs in the Bible, in sense 1, (meaning the
True God) it is employed with singular verbs and singular ad-
jectives.

Relative to this, a friend * directs my attention to Genesis 1:
26: "Let us make man in our image,'* etc., which in Hebrew is
Maach — "we will make," first person plural future of the verb
Asah: betsalmaun — be "in;" tselem, "image;" Nu, "our," posses-
sive adjective, first person plural. So that in Genesis 1:26,
we have a case where Elohim is used in connection with a plural
verb and also a plural possessive adjective, and Mr. Van Der
Donckt will not say that Elohim does not, in Genesis 1: 26, re-
fer to true Gods. Again in Genesis 3: 22 — "Man is become as
one of uSy^ Mr. Ramseyer suggests that here, again, the pro-
noun used is in the first person plural. I find this view of both
these passages sustained by Rev. H. Highton in the lecture be-
fore quoted. First he says:

The Hebrew word meaning God, ia itself a plural word, implying
thereby, as we contend, a plurality of persons in the Godhead ♦ ♦
We find the plural word Elohim, or God, most usually, though not always^
coupled with a singular verb or adjective. * * ♦ but lest from
the constant use of the word Elohim with the singular number, we
should be led to suppose that God is in no sense a plurality, it has
pleased him by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit, to cause that it
should be sometimes used with a plural verb or adjective. I will

* Prof. A. Ramseyer, of the Latter-day Saints' University.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 143

mention some of the clearest passages in which it is so used, that yon
may be enabled to refer to them in the Hebrew. You will find it
used in a plural verb in Genesis 20: 13. "And it came to pass, when
Gcd caused me to wander from my father's house," etc.; and again in
Genesis 35: 7, "And he built there an altar, and called the place fc'Z-
Bethel: because their God appeared unto him." And with a plural ad-
jective in Joshua 34: 19, and again in Deut. 5: 26 (in the original
Hebrew, 5: 23).

But we have not merely the. plural use of the word Elohim to
mention in this part of the argument; we have some very distinct
passages, still more directly implying the plurality of persons. There
is a very remarkable place of the kind in Eccle. 12: 1. where it says:
^Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth.*' In the original
Hebrew the word is in the plural, and if translated literally, would
be **Remember now thy Creators," etc. * * * In connectipn with
this expression of Solomon about man's Creators, it is a very remark-
able circumstance, that in the account of the creation of man, given
by Moses in the book of Genesis, the plural is also directly used, for
it is there recorded. Genesis 1, 26, *'And God said let us make'* etc.,
or **we will make" etc., so that Moses as well as Solomon very em-
phatically declares that the great Creator of man consists of more
than one person; for whom could God have been addressing when he
said, ''Let us make" etc.? I know that in order to escape the obvi-
ous conclusion to be drawn from the passage, it has been asserted
that God was here addressing and taking counsel with the angels ;
but this explanation cannot in any degree bear the test of an accu-
rate examination of the passage; for is there the slightest ground for
supposing that the angels took any part in the creation of man, when
God said, *'Let us make" ? or shall we say that man' was made in the
image and likeness of the angels, when God said, ''Let us make" etc.,
"m our imagel" Surely not, for Moses expressly atids, (v. 27) "So
God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him,
male and female created he them," But there are some other passages
which we ought to examine, where God in the same way speaks of
himself in the plural number. Thus in Genesis 3: 22, "And the
Lord God said, "Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good

144 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the
tree of life, and eat and live forever," etc. There are no words which
I know which could more distinctly assert the plurality of persons in
God than these, where he says "one of us." M. Leeser, of Philadel-
phia, the editor of the Occident, which is the American Jewish maga-
zine, in his sermon on the Messiah, explains this passage as spoken
to the angels — **one of us," meaning himself and the angels; — but
never can I believe that the Great Everlasting Creator could thus
put himself on a level with the created angels, and say "one of us,*'
* ♦ * he would either have said to the angels, "Behold, man has
become as one of you," or else have said, "Behold, the man has be-
come like me, to know good and evil."

This view of Genesis 1 : 26 is also maintained by Prof. W. H.
Chamberlin, of Brigham Young College, Logan, Utah, in the
Era for November, 1902. He says: That Elohim was used in
the plural sense is shown in the twenty-sixth verse, where the
Elohim, in referring to themselves use the plural suflSx Nu
**our," twice, and they also use the plural form of the verb
Naaseh, " let us make." The Professor also adds the illustra-
tion of Genesis 11: 7; where iVerdAaA, "let us descend," and
Nabhlahy "let us confuse," two verbs in the plural, proceed
from the mouth of God.*

In the light of these facts, the statement of Mr. V. that
whenever Elohim occurs in the Bible, as meaning the true God,
it is employed with singular verbs and singular adjectives,
seems to have been made without that careful consideration
which the importance of the declaration required. The facts
adduced in the foregoing stand also against Mr. V's contention
that whenever the plural "gods" occurs in Holy Writ, it applies

* I commend Professor Chamberlin's whole article to the reader
as most worthy of his attention at this point; and personally, I wish
to thank the Professor for it as a most timely contribution to the
controversy. The whole article is published in Chapter v.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 145

only "to false gods and idols;" or "to representatives of God,
such as angels, judges, kings." They were not false gods nor
representatives of God merely, who said: "Let us make man in
our image" (Genesis i: 26); nor false gods, or mere representa-
tives of God merely, who said: "The man has become as one of
tA«" (Genesis 2: 7); and so also with other passages in the quo-
tation from Rev. Highton's lecture.

Here it may be as well to note the remarks of Mr. Van
Der Donckt with reference to the "Mormon" Church leaders'
knowledge of Hebrew. The Rev. gentleman is of the opinion
that,

Had the **Mormon" Church leaders known Hebrew, the original
language of the book of Moses and nearly the whole of the Old Testa-
ment, they would not have been guilty of the outrigeous blunder!
of the Pearl of Great Price and of the Catechism.

Mr. V. then quotes from our Catechism the account of the
creation taken from the Pearl of Great Price, in which the plural
"Gods" is used instead of the singular form "God." It is prob-
able that the "Mormon" Church leaders were better acquainted
with Hebrew than Mr. V. gives them credit for. A number of
years ago (1870) a certain chaplain of the United States Senate
presumed not a little on the ignorance of a "Mormon" Church
leader — Elder Orson Pratt — respecting Hebrew, and ventured,
in the notable debate held by them in the "Mormon" Tabernacle,
at Salt Lake City, to parade the few Hebrew stem-words, and
their derivatives, which he had conned with care before leaving
Washington, with a view of making them effective in support
of the marginal reading of Leviticus 18 and 18 in our common
English version. To the chaplain's surprise, the "Mormon''
apostle was able to follow him in the discussion of ihe original
Hebrew text, and demonstrated that he had a knowledge of
Hebrew which made his opponent's special preparation of a few
Hebrew words and passages look very much like a cheap bid for

146 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

a reputation for learning, which the chaplain'-s knowledge of
Hebrew, at least, did not warrant. Nor is that all the story.
Elder Pratt — having observed the stress which the chaplain bad
laid upon the marginal rendering of Leviticus 18: 18, in a
discourse delivered in Washington, D. C, before President
Grant, members of his cabinet, and members of Congress — to
call Dr. Newman out, to give him confidence to introduce his
defense of the marginal rendering of the passage in the debate
at Salt Lake City — Elder Pratt quoted the marginal reading of
an unimportant passage, and thus invited the discussion of the
text in the Hebrew. The Elder's bait took, the discussion
largely turned, after that, upon the text in question, much to
the chagrin of the Senate's chaplain; and Leviticus 18: 18 has
been somewhat historical hereabouts, and in Washington, ever
since.

But how came Orson Pratt acquainted with Hebrew? The
fact is, that in the winter of 1835-6 a school of languages was
established by the Church, at Kirtland, which many of the lead-
ing Elders of the Church attended, Joseph Smith and Orson
Pratt being among the number; and Professor Joshua Seixas, of
Hudpon, Ohio, was employed as teacher. The Elders were en-
thusiastic in their study of Hebrew, and after Prof. Seixas' term
as teacher had expired, the class was continued with Joseph
Smith as instructor,, Orson Pratt continuing in attendance on
the school. The "Mormon" Church leaders, I repeat, were bet-
ter acquainted with Hebrew than Mr Van Der Donckt gives
them credit for; besides, the blunders which Mr. Van Der
Donckt has made in his assertions concerning the use of the
plural Elohim, in the Old Testament, makes it rather clear
that he is scarcely competent to be a judge of anybody's
Hebrew. Moreover, the passage he quotes from our Catechism,
where, in the account of creation, the plural **God8" is used, is
not a quotation from the Bible at all; but a translation from a

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 147

record called the **Book of Abraham," which came into the
hands of the Prophet Joseph Smith from the catacombs of
Egypt. So that Mr. V's attempted criticism of what he ev-
idently takes to be extracts of translations from parts of the
Bible, is not in point at all, since they are translated extracts
from a book that forms no part of the Bible. And is it not ev-
ident throughout that Mr. Van Der Donckt has rushf^d into the
discussion without being suflSciently informed concerning the
doctrines upon which he undertakes to animadvert?

Of the Father Alone, Being God.

Referring to the admission in my discourse that concep-
tions of God, to be true, must be in harmony with the New
Testament, Mr. Van Der Donckt proceeds to quote passages
from the New Testament, in support of the idea that there is
but one God:

One is good, God (Matt. 19: 17). Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God (Luke 10: 27). My Father of whom you say that he is your
God (John 8: 54). Here Christ testified that the Jews believed
in only one God.

The Lord is a God of all knowledge (I Kings 2). ("Mormon*
Catechism V. Q. 10 and 2. 11).

Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the angels of
heaven, but the Father alone (Matthew 24; 36).

No one knoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke 10: 22).

Therefore, no one is God but one, the Heavenly Father.

In another form: the All-knowing alone is God. The Father
alone is all-knowing. Therefore, the Father alone is God.

In the conclusion of the syllogism, "Therefore, the Father
alone is God, Mr.V. himself seems to have become suddenly con-
scious of having stumbled upon a difficulty which he ineffect-
ually seeks to remove in a foot note. If it be true, as Mr. V.
asserts it is, that the Father alone is God, then it must

148 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

follow that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is not God; that the
Holy Ghost is not God! Yet the New Testament, in represent-
ing the Father as addressing Jesus, says — "Thy throne, God,
is forever and forever*' (Heb. 1:8). Here is the positive word
of the Father chat Jesus, the Son, is God; for he addresses him
as such. To say, then, that the father alone is God, is to
contradict the Father. Slightly paraphrasing the rather stern
language of Mr. V., I might ask: If God the Father so emphat-
ically declares that Jesus is God, has any one the right to con-
tradict him by aflSrming that the Father alone is God? But
Mr. V. insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other
words, that God, the author of the Bible, contradicts himself:
"To say such a thing, is downright blasphemy!" But Mr. V.
will say he has explained all that in his foot note. Has heT
Let us see. "Therefore the Father alone is God," is the con-
clusion of his syllogism; and the foot note — "To the exclusion
of another or separate divine being, but not to the denial of the
distinct divine personalities of the Son and the Holy Ghost in
the One Divine Being." But that is the mere assumption of
my Catholic friend. When he says that ^Ae Father alone
is God, it must be to the exclusion of every other being, or
part of being, or person, and everything else, or language means
nothing. Mr. V's foot note helps him out of his difficulty not
at all.

The creed to which Mr. Van Der Donckt subscribes — the
Athanasian — says: "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and
the Holy Ghost is God." Now, if the quality of "all-knowing"
is essential to the attributes of true Deity, then Jesus and the
Holy Ghost must be all-knowing, or else not true deity.

But what of the difficulty presented by Mr. V's conten-
tion: "The All-knowing alone is God, the Father alone is All-
knowing, therefore, the Father alone is God?" Mr. V. con-
structs this mighty syllogism upon a very precarious basis. It

THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 149

reminds one of a pyramid standing on its apex. He starts
with the premise that **The Lord is a God of all knowledge:"
then he discovers that there is one thing that Jesus, the Son of
God does not know — the day and hour when Jesus will come to
earth in his glory — "Of that day and hour no oneknoweth; no,
not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matt 24: 36) —
therefore, the Father alone is God !" In consideration of facts
such as are included in Mr. V's middle term, one is bound, in
the nature of things, to take into account time, place and cir-
cumstances. In the case in question, the Twelve disciples had
come to Jesus, and among other questions asked him what
should be the sign cf his own glorious coming to earth again.
The Master told them the signs, but said of the day and hour
of that coming no one knew, but his Father only. Hence,
Jesus did not know, hence Jesus did not possess all knowledge,
hence, according to Mr. V., Jesus was not God! But Jesus was
referring to the state, of matters at the particular time when he
was speaking; and it does not follow that the Father would ex-
clude his Son Jesus forever, or for any considerable time, from
the knowledge of the time of the glorious advent of the Son of
God to the earth. As Jesus rose to the possession of all power
"in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28: 18), so also, doubtless,
he rose to the possession of all knowledge in heaven and in
earth; "For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all
things that he himself doeth" (John 5: 20), and, in sharing with
the Son his power, and his purposes, would doubtless make
known to him the day and hour of the glorious advent of
Christ to the earth.

Of the Oneness oj the Bather, Son and Holy Ghost. Is it
Physical Identity?

I next consider Mr. Van Der Donckt*s argument concern-
ing the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost being "the same

150 THE **mormon'' doctrine op deity.

identical Divine Essence." Mr. V. bases this part of his argu-
ment on the words of Messiah — **I and my Father are one
(John 10: 30); and claims that here "Christ asserts his physical,
not merely moral, union with the Father." He holds also that
in the Latin translation of the words of Jesus is better exhibited
the construction he contends for: hence, I give the Latin and
his remarks upon it, that we may have his contention before us
at its very best. Ego et Pater unum sumus — I and my Father
are one.

"If Christ had meant one in mind or one morally and not svJbstaair
tidily, he would have used the masculine gender, Greek ew, (unus) —
and not the neuter en, (unum) — as he did. No better interpreters of
our Lord's meaning can be found than his own hearers. Had he simply
declared his moral union with the Father, the Jews would not have
taken up stones in protest against him making himself God, and as-
serting his identity with the Father. Far from retracting His state-
ment or correcting the Jews* impression, Jesus, insists that,as he is the
Son of God he had far more right to declare himself God than the
scripture had to call mere human judges gods, and he corroborates his
affirmation of his physical unity with his Father by saying: "The
Father is in me, and I am in the Father," which evidently signifies
the same as verse 30: 1 and the Father are one and the same individ-
ual being, the One God.

It is amusing sometimes to observe how the learned dis-
agree about the meaning of words — especially in the languages
called dead. It must be admitted in favor of Mr. V's conten-
tion that the Fathers of the Council of Sardica, A. D. 347, ex-
pressly scouted the opinion that the union of the Father and
Son consisted in consent and concord only, and apprehended the
oneness of the Father and the Son to be a strict unity of sub-
stance;* still, before that time, a number of the so-called Chris-
tian Fathers, some among the most influential, too, held to a

* Theodoret, Book II, Chap. 8.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 151

contrary opinion, as the following from Dr. Priestley's History
of the Corruptions of Christianity, with the accompanying refer-
ences to the works of the* Christian Fathers themselves,
will show:

Notwithstanding the supposed derivation of the Son from the
Father, and therefore their being of the same substance, most of the
early Christian writers thought the text, "I and my Father are one,"
was to be understood of an unity or harmony of disposition only.
Thus TertuUian* observes, that the expression is unum, one thing, not
one person; and he explains it to mean unity, likeness, conjunction,
and of the love that the Father bore to the Son. Origen says, let
him consider the text, '*All that believe weie of one [unum] heart and of
one [unum] souly'* and then he will understand this, "/ and my Father
are o»g,"t [unum]. Novatian says: "One thing (unum) being in the
neuter gender, signifies an agreement of society, not an unity of
person, and he explains it by this passage in Paul: "He that planteth
and he that wateretkare both one" [unum]{.

Relative to Messiah's hearers being the best interpreters
of our Lord's meaning in this case, I suggest that Mr. V. has
limited himself too exclusively to this one passage for their in-
terpretation of Messiah's meaning. Mr. V's argument is that
if Jesus had only declared his moral not his physical union with
God, the Jews would not have taken up stones in protest
against his making himself God, and asserting his identity with
the Father. Let us see. The passage quoted by Mr. V. is not
the only one in which Jesus asserts his divinity. Jesus healed
a man on the Sabbath. The Jews sought to slay him because he
had done this thing on the Sabbath day. "But Jesus answered
them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore
the Jews sought the more to ki 1 him, because he not only had

* Against Prexas, Chap. 22, p. 513.
t Against Celsum, Lib. 8, p. 386.
JiWrf, Chap. 27, p. 99.

152 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

broken the Sabbath day, but said also that God was his Father,
making himself equal with God" (John 5: 15-18). Observe that
this is the same witness that Mr. V. quotes— St. John; and the
offense for which they seek to kill Jesus is not because he as-
serts his identity with the Father, but because he makes himself
**equal with God." Hence, the argument of Mr. V., based on the
assumption that Jesus asserted not his moral but his physical
union or identity with God; and his claim that the Jews would
not have sought Messiah's life but for the reason that he
claimed physical identity with the Father, falls to the ground,
for the reason that we find that the Jews were eager to kill
him for asserting not his physical union with God, but his equality
with God.

But I shall test Mr. V's exegesis of the passage in question
by the examination of another passage involving the same ideas,
the same expressions; and this in the Latin as well as in the
English. Jesus prayed for his disciples as follows:

Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou
hast given me, that they may be one^ as we are, * * * * Neither
pray I for these [the disciples] alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word; that they all may be one: * * *
that they may be one^ even as we are one*

In Latin, the clauses written in Italics in the above, stand:
Ut sint unum, sicut et nos (verse 11), "that they may be one>
just as we." So in verse 22: Ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum
sumus; "that they may be one in us, even as we one are." Here
unum, "one," is used in the same manner as it is in St. John,
10:30— "Ego et Pater unum sumus." "I and Father one are."
Mr. V. says that unum in the last sentence means, one thing,
one essence; hence, Christ's physical union, or identity of sub-
stance, with the Father; not agreement of mind, or concord of

*St. John 17:11, 20, 21. 22.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 153

purpose, or moral union. Very well, for the moment let ua
adopt his exposition, and see where it will lead us. If unum in
the sentence, ^o et Pater unum Bumus, means "one thing,'*
'*one substance, or essence," and denotes the physical union of
the Father and Son in one substance, then it means the same in
the sentence — ut sint unum, sicut et nos; that is, "that they
[the disciples] may be one [unum] just as we are." So in the
other passage before quoted where the same words occur.

Again, to Messiah's statement: ''Ego et Pater unum sumus'*
— "I and my Father are one." — Mr. V. thinks his view of this
passage — that it asserts the identy or physical union of the
Father and the Son— is strengthened by the fact that it is fol-
lowed with these remarks of Jesus: "The Father is in me, and
I am in the Father." "Which evidently signifies," says Mr. V.,
"the same as verse 30 (John 10): I and the Father are one and
the same individual being, the one God."

But the passage from the prayer of Jesus concerning
the oneness of the disciples with the Father and the Son,
is emphasized by well-nigh the same words in the context as
those which occur in John 10:30, and upon which Mr. V. lays
so much stress as sustaining his exposition of the physical
union, viz: "The Father is in me, and I in him" (verse 38).
"Which evidently signifies," Mr. V. remarks, "the same as verse
30: I and my Father are one." Good; then listen: "Holy Father,
keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,
that they may be one as we are: * * as thou Father, art in me,
and I in thee, that they may he one in us J* There can be no doubt
now but what the union between the disciples and the Father
and Son is to be of the same nature as that subsisting between
the Father and Son. If the Father and Son are physically one
substance or essence, so, too, if the prayer of Jesus is to be
realized — as surely it will be — then the disciples are to be phys-
ically united with God, in one essence or substance — not just

10

154 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

the Twelve disciples, either, for whom Jesus immediately prayed,
but those, also, in all pfeneratious who shall believe on Christ
through the words of his first disciples; that is, all the faithful
believers through all generations are to become physically
united with God, become the same substance or essence as God
himself! Is Mr. Van Der Donckt prepared to accept the inevit-
able conclusion of his own exposition of John 10:30? If so,
then what advantage has the Christian over the Hindoo whom
he has called a heathen for so many generations? The sincer-
est desire of the Hindoo is to be "physically united with God,'*
even if that involve "a blowing out," or the attainment of Nir-
vana — annihilation —to encompass it. Of course, we had all
hoped for better things from the Christian religion. We had
hoped for the immortality of the individual man; for his persis-
tence through the ages, as an individual entity, associated with
God in loving converse and dearest relations of moral union; but
not absorbed, or lost in absolute physical union with him. But
if Mr. V's exposition of John 10:30 be correct, and a physical
union is meant by the words — "I and my Father are one," then
all Christians are to be made physically one with God under the
prayer of Christ --"That they may be one, as we are^* — i. e. as
the Father and Son are one.

If, however, this doctrine of physical union should be de-
fended up to the point of asserting the physical union of all
Christians with each other and with God — and my comparison of
this position with that of the heathen Hindoo resented, because
that in the case of the Christian after his physical union with, or
absorption into God, God would still remain, whereas, with the
Hindoo nothing would remain, for his Nirvana is but annihilation
— I could still ask, what is the difference? for the terms that de-
scribe the Nirvana of the Hindoo describe also the God of the
Christian. ''Nirvana is represented as something which has no
antecedent cause, no qualities, no locality. It is something of

THE '*M0RM0N" doctrine OF DEITY. 155

which the utmost we may asaert ia, *' 'that it is.'"'* In all of
which one may see Mr. V's '*That which is;'* "I Am who Am;"
"Infinite Being;" God, "most simple, or not compound/* — whose
"essence is actual being or existence."

My point is, that the text, *'I and my Father are one," re-
fers to a moral union — to a perfect union of purpose and will —
not to a unity or identity of substance, or essence: and any
other view than this is shown from the argument to be absurd.

But Mr. Van Der Donckt would cry out against the phys-
ical union of man with God. Both his interpretation of scrip-
ture and his philosophy — especially the latter — would require
it. Man and God, in bis philosophy, are not of the same nature.
God is not physical, while man is. God is not material, but
spiritual, that is, according to Mr. V., immaterial, while man is
material. Man is finite, God infinite; nothing can be added to
the infinite, therefore, man cannot be added to the infinite in
physical union. "The nature of the pans would cling to the
whole," and the infinity of God would be marred by the phys-
ical union of finite parts to him; hence, the onentsss of Christ-
ians with Christ and God the Father is not a physical oneness.
But if the union of the Christians with Christ and God is not to
be physical, then neither is the union of Christ and God the
Father physical, for the oneness in the one case, is to be the
same as the oneness in the other — "that they all may be one;
as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be
one in us * * * * that they may be one even as we are
one (John 17: 21, 22).

The doctrine of physical union between the Father and the
Son, contended for by Mr. V., must be abandoned. There is no
help for it, unless he is prepared to admit also the physical
union of all the disciples with God — a thing most repugnant to

Max Muller, "Chips from a German Workshop," vol. I, p. 285.

156 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

Mr. V's principles. With the doctrine of physical identity gone,
the **oneness" of the Father and the Son, that Mr. V. contends
for, goes also, and two separate and distinct personalities, or
Gods, are seen, in the Father and the Son, whose oneness con-
sists not of physical identity, but of agreement of mind, concord
of will, and unity of purpose; a oneness born of perfect knowl-
edge, equality of power and dominion. But if a perfect one-
ness, as above set forth, may subsist between two persons, it
may subsist with equal consistency among any number of per-
sons capable of attaining to the same degree of intelligence
and power, and thus there would appear some reason for the
prayer of Christ, that all his disciples might be one, even
as he and the Father are one. And thus one may account
for the saying of David: "God standeth in the congregation of
the mighty: he judgeth among the Gods" (Psalm 82: 1); for
such congregations existed in heaven before the foundations of
the earth were laid; and such a congregation may yet be made
up of the redeemed from our own earth, when attaining to per-
fect union with God and Christ.

Of The Lord Our God Being One God. .

But I shall be asked how all this is to be reconciled with the
scriptures quoted by Mr. V., and relied upon as the basis of his
argument in this part of the discussion — "Hear, Israel: The
Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6: 4); and "I alone am, and
there is no other God beside me" (Deut. 32: 39); and, also com-
ing to the New Testament, "There is none good but one, that
is God" (Matt. 19: 17).

The whole apparent difficulty is explained by Paul, who, I
think, will be accepted as a remarkably good theologian. He
says: "For though there be that are called Gods, whether in
heaven or in earth (as there be Gods many and Lords many),
but to us there is but one God, the Fathef* (I Cor. 8: 5, 6). That

THE "mormon" DOCTRINB OP DEITY. 157

is, "pertaining to t^a," as Joseph Smith explains, "there is but one
God/' Ah, but Mr. V. has explained all that, and destroyed
all the force of "Mormon*' argument, based upon this Corinth-
ian letter passage, by saying that "a man must not be a lawyer
to know that the fact that not a few quacks and clowns are
eaUed doctors does not make them such;*' and then follows this
— "Neither Christ nor Paul say that they are or were Gods, but
simply that they were called Gods!"

One wonders at this, when he takes into account the evi-
dent carefulness of Mr. V. as a writer. Jesus, whom he quotes
as saying, the beings referred to as Gods are but called Gods,
not that they are so, really fails to give due weight to the
Psalm which Jesus qotes: "I have said ye are Gods, and all oj
you are children of the Most High** (Psalm 82: 6). Of this
scripture, Jesus says: "Is it not written in your law, I said, ye
are Gods/* and he quotes with evident approval these inspired
words of David, for he adds — "the scripture cannot be broken**
(John 10: 33); that is, the scripture of David saying, "ye are
Gods," is true, it cannot be gainsaid. Nor is this indorsement
of David's utterance weakened by the subsequent remark of
Jesus, "If he called them Gods unto unto whom the word of
God came," etc.; for, when considered in the light of all the
Psalmist said, and all that Jesus said, the "called them Godsf*
by no manner of means signifies that they were not Gods.
David said, "ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most
High** (Psalm 82: 6). The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy,
because he had said he was the son of God (John 10: 36); in
defense, Jesus quoted the passage from the Psalms where it is
said of men, "ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the
Most High" — as showing that he was but claiming for himself
the relationship that in the law of the Jews was accorded to
men — sons of God, children of the Most High, and hence, he
was not a blasphemer. In other words, if the Psalmist could say

158 THE "mormon" doctrine of deity.

to those he addressed, "all of you are children of the Most
High," why should he, the Christ, be considered a blasphemer
because he called himself the Son of God?

Surely, also, the gentleman has overlooked Paul's very
emphatic declaration in the parenthetical part of the sentence
he quotes: viz,y "There be Gods many and Lords many; yet to
us there is but one God."

Now, consider with this explanation of Paul's the following:

"Hear, 0, Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.*' —Moses,

"The head of the Gods appointed one God for us." — Joseph
Smith*

"He [Aaron] shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou
shalt be to him instead of God." — 2 he Lord to Moses (Exodus
4: 16).

"See, I have made thee a God unto Pharaoh."--- 2%e Lord
unto Moses (Exodus 7: 1).

"I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods, to be sons
of God, and all can cry *Abba, Father.' " — Joseph SmitLf

It is evident from the above passages (Exodus 4: 16, and
Exodus 7: 1) that God does appoint men to be Gods, even in
this world. Why then should it be considered error to believe
that from "the congregation of the Mighty," where "God
judge th among the Gods" (Psalm 82: 1), there should be ap-
pointed One who should be our God? And is it strange that
from henceforth, the true servants of God should. stand up for
the dignity and honor and exclusiveness of the power and
authority of that One God over this earth against the claims,
and to the exclusion of all gods and powers, that men in their
vain imaginings set up against this God of heaven and earth,

* From discourse delivered lOth June, 1844. Mill. Star, vol. 24,
p. 108 et seq.

t Sixteenth of June sermon, 1844. MiU. Star, vol. 24, p. 140.

THE ''mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 159

as did Moses, Paul and Joseph Smith? No wonder that Moses
sent ringing down through the centuries that clarion sentence:
"Hear, Israel, Our God is one Lord;" that the Hebrew race
stood as the witness of that one God, and fashioned their
nomenclature accordingly; or that Paul said, '^Though there be
that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth — as there be
Gods manUy and Lords many — but to us there is but one God;"
or that Joseph Smith, in the Dispensation of the Fullness of
Times, should take up thf> same refrain as these ancient servants
of God, and say, "Pertaining to us, there is but one God;"
"Those Gods whom God reveals as Gods, are sons of God, and
all can cry Abba, Father!"

Of Our Revelations From God Being Local.

I suggest, as a further evidence, that the view here
presented concerning our God, and the assertion of his oneness,
that the revelations in the Bible are revelations, in the main,
concerning our earth and the heavens pertaining to it; that
these revelations do not attempt to deal with or furnish an
explanation of conditions that obtain throughout the universe;
that they do not attempt to give us any explicit information
concerning conditions in the constellations of the Pleiades, Orion,
Cassiopeia, or Ursa Major, to say nothing of those galaxies of
worlds which lie beyond the vision of men, even when aided by the
mightiest telescope. In other words, the revelations of the Bible
are, in the main, local;* it is only here and there that a glimpse

♦ In support of this view I may here quote the Prophet Joseph
Smith. "Everlasting covenant was made between three personages
before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation
of things to men on the earth: these personages, according to Abra-
ham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second,
the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator*' (See
Richards* and Little's ("ompendium. Gems, 289).

160 THE "mormon" doctrine of deity.

of things is given outside of our heaven and our earth. That
being the case, the revelation of God to the Hebrew race was
made in a nomenclature accordant with the facts to be ex-
pressed, hence — **Hear, 0, Israel: our God is one Lord." This
idea is emphasized in the Book of Moses, found in the Pearl of
Great Price. The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith some of the
writings of Moses in which the Hebrew prophet makes known
the source of his knowledge concerning the creations of God, but
it was concerning our earth and its heavens of which Moses was
commanded to write:

Worlds without number have I created, ♦ * * but
only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I
unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away
by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and
innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto
m«, for they are mine, and I know them. And it came to pass that
Moses spake unto th Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant,
God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof,
and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. And the
Lord spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many,
and cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto
me, for they are mine. * * * ^nd now, Moses, my
son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou
standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

And again the Lord said to Moses:

And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying:
Behold, I will reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth;
write the words which I speak.

So far as the Hebrews were concerned, however, they per-
mitted the truth of the one God idea committed to them to de-
generate into mere superstition. Through race pride, and vain
glory in their guardianship of the name of the one God, they

THE '*M0RM0N" doctrine OF DEITY. 161

hedged it about with such secrecy and superstition that, under
the pretext of not using the name of God in vain, they prohibited
its pronounciation except by the High Priest (and he was to
pronounce it but once a year, and that on the day of Atonement,
when he entered the Holy of Holies); finally they lost the true
pronunciation of the name entirely. The historian of the
Jews, Josephus, when writing the antiquities of his people for
the information of the Gentiles, stated that it was not lawful
for him, though a priest, to utter it.* It is a singular fact, but
abundantly demonstrated in the history alike of individuals and
nations, that when the adversary of men's souls fails in keeping
the truth from mankind, he seeks to destroy the effect of that
truth by converting it into a mere human superstition. The
late Erastus Snow, an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, used to present this truth by a very effective
figure. Addressing himself to a congregation that had been
carried into some excesses of superstitious observances, he said:
"We will suppose that drawn immediately in front of you is the
line of your exact duty. Satan will make every effort to hold
you back from that line. When he discovers that it is
impossible to hold you back, his next effort will be to push
you as far beyond it as possible; and, being forced beyond the line
of duty into superstitious observances, is liable to get you
into as much difficulty as being held back from toeing it
squarely."

Such was the case with the Jews, with reference to their
being made witnesses of the one God idea for our earth.
When Lucifer could no longer blind their eyes by the false

* Smith's ''Dictionary of the Bible" (Hackett Edition), vol. 2,
art Jehovah, Also Antiquities of the Jews (Josephus), book 2,
chap. 12.

162 THE "mormon" doctrine of deity.

polytheism of the pagan world, he rushed them over the line
of the truth to the other extreme— into the superstitions
that have gathered about monotheism, until finally, through
such teachers as Aristobulus (150 B. C.) and Philo (con-
tempory with Messiah), they were brought to accept many
of the vagaries of the Grecian pagan philosophy, which, after-
wards, as we have seen, were engrafted into the Christian
theology.

Of God being One in the Generic Sense.

There is also another sense in which the "Oneness" of God
may be apprehended; and yet be in harmony with the doctrines
contended for in this **R?jbinder," and the discourse it defends.
I have already stated the doctrines of the (ilhurch of Christ
respecting the immortality of the ego, the intelligence of man;
saying that it is self-existent, uncreated, and as eternal as God
is; indeed, it is the divine in man, it is part of the Eternal; and
now the time has come to say something further in reference
to this matter. I find a word on the subject fitly spoken by the
late Orson Pratt, in a discourse delivered in 1855, in Salt
Lake City. He said:

There is one revelation that this people are not generally
acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably
it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers.
The first question is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?"
The answer says, **Ahman.'' "What is the name of the Son of God?"
Answer, "Son Ahman, the greatest of all the parts of God, excepting
Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the
answer. **What is the name of angels in the pure language?"
"Anglo-man." The revelation goes an to say that Sons Ahman are
the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman, and
Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God
excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman and Ahman, showing that the

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 163

angels are a little lower than man.* Vf hat is the conclusion to be
drawn from this? It is that these intelligent beings are all parts
of God.t

This, it will be said, is a bold doctrine; and indeed it is bold.
I love it for its boldness, but not so much for that, as for the
reason that it is true. It is in harmony with another revelation
given through Joseph Smith, wherein it is said:

Man was also [as well as Jesus] in the beginning with God. Intel-
ligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed

* It may be thought, at the first reading of -this statement, **the
angels are a little lower than man,*' is in conflict with the scripture,
"Thou madest him [man] a little lower than the angels*' (Heb. 2: 7).
But I call attention to the marginal rendering of the passage in King
James' translation, ''Thou madest him a little while inferior to the
angels." Without stopping here to consider which is the better transla-
tion of the passage, it may be said of the latter that it is in better har-
mony with the context of the passage as it stands here, in Hebrews, and
also in Psalms, than the preferred rendering of it in the regular text;
for in both places it says of man, "Thou crownedst him with glory
and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: thou hast
put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all
things in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under
him. But now we see not yet all things put under him." Moreover,
we see the same thing is said of Jesus that is said of man: "We
see Jesus who was made a title lower than the angels, for the suffering
of death, crowned with glory and honor" (Heb. 2: 9). Surely "made
a little lower than the angels," when said of Jesus could be but for
"a little while inferior to," etc.; and that only in the matter of "the
suffering of death." So, too, with man; he is made "a little while
inferior to the angels," after which period he would rise to the dignity
of his place, when it would be seen, as said in the text with which
this note deals, "the angels are a little lower than man;" that is, of
course, when man shall have attained unto his exaltation and glory.

t Journal of Discouses, Vol. 2, p. 342.

164 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

can be. ♦ ♦ * For man is spirit. The elements are eternal,
and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of
joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The
elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of
God, even temples (Doc. and Gov., sec. 93: 29-35).

Nor is the doctrine less in harmony with the Jewish scrip-
tures:

For it became him, for whom are all things and by whom are all
things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of
their salvation perfect through suffering. For both he that sanctijietk
and they who are sanctified are aU of one; for which cause he is not
ashanud to call them brethren.

In this same chapter of Hebrews, Jesus, as well as man, is
spoken of as being made "a little while inferior to the angels"
(verses 7 and 9 marginal reading); and he is spoken of by
the same apostle in another place as being but "the first born
among many brethren" (Rom. 8: 29). Also in hia great dis-
course in Mars Hill, Paul not only declares that God "hath
made of one blood all nations of men" — but he also quoted with
approval the Greek poet Aratus*, where the latter says: "For
we are also his [God's] offspring;" and to this the apostle adds:
"For as much, then, as we are the offspring of God [hence of
the same race and nature], we ought not to think that the
Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art
after man's device" (Acts 17: 26-30). The nature of our own
being, one might add, in continuation of the apostle's reason-
ing, should teach those who recognize men as the offspring of
God, better than to think of the Godhead as of gold, or silver,
or stone, graven by art after man's device, since the nature of

* He was a poet of Cilicia, of which province Tarsus, PauPs native
city, was the capital. He wrote about four hundred years before
Paul's time.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 165

the offspring partakes of the nature of the parent^ and our
own nature teaches us that men are not as stocks and stones,
though the latter be graven by art after the devices of men.

Paul might also have quoted the great Hebrew poet:" God
standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among
the Gods. * * * / have said ye are Gods; and all of you are
children of the Most High" (Ps. 82: 1, 6, 7); and though he adds,
"But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes/'
it does not detract from the assertion, "and all of you are
children of the Most High ;" for Jesus died, even as men
die; but he was the Son of God, nevertheless, and he himself a
Deity.

The matter is clear, then, men and Gods are of the same
race; Jesus is the Son of God, and so, too, are all men the off-
spring of God, and Jesus but the first born of many brethren.
Eternal Intelligences are begotten of God, spirits, and hence are
sons of God — a dignity that never leaves them. "Beloved,"
said one of old, "now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet
appear what we shall be; but we know that when he [Christ]
shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is"
(I John 3: 2).

Here, in the way of anticipating an objection, I shall
pause to remark, parenthetically, that I am not unmindful of
the array of evidence that may be massed to prove that it is
chiefly through adoption, through obedience to the Gospel of
Christ, that man in the scripture is spoken of as being a son of
God. But this does not weaken the evidence for the fact for
which I am contending, viz., that man is by nature the son of
God. He becomes alienated from his Father and the Father's
kingdom through sin, through the transgression of the law
of God; hence the need of adoption into the heavenly king-
dom, and into sonship with God. But though alienated from
God through sin, man is nevertheless by nature the son of God,

166 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

and needs but the adoption that awaits him through the gospel
of Jesus Christ to cry again in renewed and perfect fellowship,
Abba, Father!

Return we now from this brief digression. Man being by
the very nature of him a son of God, and a participant in the
Divine Nature — he is properly a part of God; that is, when God
is conceived of in the generic sense, as made up of the whole
assemblage of divine Intelligences that exist in all heavens and
all earths.

Of Gody the ypirit of the Gods.

From the presence of the Gods goes out the influence and
power men sometimes call God, or the Spirit of God; from
whose presence David could not flee:

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in
hell, behold thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and
dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand
lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. Yea the darkness hideth
not from thee; but the light shineth as the day; the darkness and the
light are both alike to thee (Ps. 139: 7-12).

This Spirit is that "Something sacred and sublime," which
men recognize as moving "wool-shod" behind the worlds;
"weighing the stars; weighing the deeds of men."* This that
Spirit that permeates all space; that makes all presence bright;
all motion guides; the Power "unchanged through time's all-
devastating flight;" that unpholds and sustains all worlds. Hence
it is said, in one of the most beautiful of the revelations God
has given in this last dispensation:

As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the mton, and the
power thereof by which it was made, As also the light of the stars.

* Edward Markham.

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 167

and the power thereof by which they were made. And the earth also,
and the power thereof; even the earth upon which you stand. And
the light which now shineth, which giveth you light, is through him
who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth
your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence
of God to fill the immensity of space. The light which is in all things;
which giveth light to all things; which is the law by which all things
are governed: even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne,
who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things;
* * * The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his
light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars
also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in
the midst of the power of God. * * * Behold, all these are king-
doms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these, hath seen
God moving in his majesty and power (Doc. and Gov., sec. 88 8-13
and 45, 47).

This, then, is God, who is not far removed from every one
of us; in whom we live, and move, and have our being. This is
God immanent in nature.

And as we dwell in him, so, too, d\^ells he in us; and, as
man more expands towards divinity, more and more of the di-
vine enters into his being, until he attains unto a fullness of
light and truth; of power and glory; until he becomes perfectly
one in God, and God in bim. This the meaning of the Messiah's
prayer, made for all those who become his disciples— "That they
all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee: that
they also may be one in us" (John 17: 21).

To the same effect Paul also prayed:

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be
strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ
may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded
in love, may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth.

168 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ
which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fullness
of God (Eph. 3: 14-19).

Then again he said:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Jesus Christ: who
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
(Philippians 2: 5, 6).

It is possible for the mind of God to be in man, to will and
to do, as seemeth him [God] good. The nature of the Whole
clings to the Parts, and they may carry with them the light and
truth and glory of the Whole. Moreover, by appointment,
any One orThree of the unit Intelligences may become the em-
bodiment and representative of all the power and glory and
authority of the sum total of the Divine Intelligences; in which
capacity either the One or the Three would no longer stand only
in their individual characters as Gods, but they would stand also
as the sign and symbol of all that is divine — and would act as and
be to all intents and purposes The One God. j^nd so in every in-
habited world, and in every system of worlds, a God presides.
Deity in his own right and person, and by virtue of the essence
of him; and also by virtue of his being the sign and symbol of the
Collectivity of the Divine Intelligences of the universe. Having
access to all the councils of the Gods, each individual Deity be-
comes a partaker of the collective knowledge, wisdom, honor,
power, majesty, and glory of the Body Divine —in a word, the
embodiment of the Spirit of the Gods whose influence perme-
ates the universe.

This doctrine of Deity teaches a divine government for the
world that is in harmony with our modern knowledge of the
universe; for, as I have remarked elsewhere in effect.** An in-

* New Witness for God, pp. 473-5.

THE •'mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 169

finitnde of worlds and systems of worlds rising one above an-
other in ever-increasing splendor, in limitless space and eternal
duration, have, as a concomitant, an endless line of exalted
men to preside over and within them, as Priests, Kings, Patri-
archs, Gods! Nor is there confusion, disorder, or strife in their
vast dominions; for they all govern upon the same righteous
principles that characterize the government of God everywhere.
The Gods have attained unto the excellence that Jesus prayed
for in behalf of his apostles, and those who might believe on
their word, when he said: "Holy Father, keep through thine
own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may
be one as we are,^* I say the Gods have attained unto the
excellence of oneness that Jesus prayed his disciples might
possess, and since the Gods have attained unto it, and all
govern their worlds and systems of worlds by the same spirit,
and by the same princ iples, there is a unity in their government
that makes it one even as they are one. Let worlds and sys-
tems of worlds, galaxies of systems and universes, extend as
they may throughout limitless space, Joseph Smith has revealed
the existence of a divine government which, while characterized
by unity, is co-extensive with all these worlds and world-sys-
tems.

Concluding Reflections.

The subject enlarges as one enters into it; but I feel that
here I may let the matter rest. I do not fear the effect of Mr.
Van Der Donckt's criticism of our doctrine of Deity. Placed
side by side with the few positive truths which God has so
clearly revealed through the great prophet, seer and revelator,
in these last days — Joseph Smith — ^yet to be recognized by the
world as one of God's choicest and greatest of prophets — the
vagaries of an apostate Christendom will have no attraction for
the youth of Israel. It was generous in the Editors 'of the

11

170 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

Era, to give place to the really able article of Mr. Van Der
Donckt. I am glad they did so, for several reasons: Ifirst,
because it was a courteous and generous act in itself; second,
it stands out in marked contrast to the treatment accorded us
in sectarian religious periodicals; third, because it must demon-
strate to our youth, that we have no fear of placing our prin-
ciples where they may be tested by the religious doctrines and
philosophies of men; and although the elders of the Church of
Christ may not be equal in learning and polemical skill with
the champions of other systems, yet we have the truth, and
our confidence is that it will hold its own in the conflicts that
may beat upon it. We have the truth, I repeat, on this sub-
ject; that is, we have the truth so far as God has been pleased
to reveal it. All truth respecting God is not yet revealed,
even to the Church of Christ ; but so much as he has
revealed is true. Our feet in the matter have been set in the
right path; we have lines of truth placed in our hands, which,
if we and our children but follow patiently and with becoming
humility, I am sure will lead us into that fullness of truth
wherein is no incompleteness, but all is truth — God's truth, and
all the truth about God.

CHAPTER IV.
I.

JESUS CHRIST: THE REVELATION OP GOD.*

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent {St, John's Gospel 17: 3).

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us «n
vm.der standing, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him
that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God, and
eternal life (I John 5: 20).

It will be taken for granted, I have no doubt, that the
primary object in the earth- mission of the Lord Jesus Christ
was to redeem mankind, to be the Savior of the world. We have
the warrant of scripture for that. It is shadowed forth in the
words that God spoke in Eden to the **Serpent," and having in
mind the Lord Jesus:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between
thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
his heel.t

Turning to the New Testament, we read:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast-
ing life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world, but that the world through him might be saved.J

♦A discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden, Utah, Tuesday
evening, April 22, 1902, under the auspices of the Young Men's Mut-
ual Improvement Association of the W«ber Stake of Zion.

tGen. 3: 15.

JSt. John 3: 16, 17.

172 THE "mormon'' doctrine op deity.

I say to be the Savior of the world was the primary pur-
pose of Christ's mission. But there is another purpose spoken
of in scripture concerning the mission of the Lord Jesus. To
one of the old prophets in Israel it was said: "Behold, a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and shall 'call his name
Immanuel."* — "which," says Matthew in his Gospel, "being
interpreted, is God with us."t

In connection with this there is one more scripture to which
I desire to call your attention :

Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the
flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gen-
tiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.J

That this passage has direct reference to the Lord Jesus
Christ no one can doubt; for to none but to him does the lan-
guage apply. Here let me say with reference to the Bible state-
ment that Christ was God "manifest in the flesh," that some
scholars hold that the Greek word translated "manifest,"
in our English Bible, should be rendered "manifested," a
stronger word; so that Jesus Christ, if this rendering of the
Greek be true, according to the teachings of Paul, was God
"manifested" in the flesh.

With this brief scriptural introduction to the subject, and
with the statement clearly before you that Jesus Christ is God,
and, moreover, is God manifested in the flesh, I desire to call
your attention to the ideas prevailing in the world respecting
Deity at the time of Messiah's advent among men; and this to
show you there certainly was a very great necessity for a rev-
elation of God being given; for men knew him not; nor had they

* Isaiah 7: 14.
t Matt. 3: 23.
1 1 Tim. 3: 16.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 173

by searching been able to find him out. Men were without the
knowledge of God, when it pleased God to reveal himself to
them through his only begotten Son, Jesus, the Christ.

Beliefs in India and Egypt.

I first direct your attention to India and Egypt. In these
two countries what is commonly called Pantheism prevailed.
Now, I know that word represents complex rather than simple
ideas to you, and needs a little explanation. Pantheism, speak-
ing in a general way, is of two kinds: First, the Pantheism
that sinks all nature into one substance, one essence, and then
concludes that that one substance or essence is God. Such
Pantheism as this is the purest Monism — that is, the one sub-
stance theory; and is spoken of by some of our philosophers as
the purest Theism — that is, faith in one God. Indeed, Panthe-
ism, in this aspect of it, is looked upon as a sort of exaggerated
Theism; for it regards **God" as the only substance, of which
the material universe and man are but ever-changing manifest-
ations. It is the form of Pantheism which identifies mind and
matter, the finite and infinite, making them but manifestations
of one universal being; but in effect it denies the personality,
by which I mean the individuality, of God. This was, and, for
matter of that, is now, the general belief of many millions in
India. The Pantheism which expands the one substance into all
the variety of objects that we see in nature, is the second kind
of Pantheism referred to a moment since, and regards those
various parts as God, or God expanded into nature. This leads
to the grossest kind of idolatry, as it did in Egypt, at the time
of which I am speaking. Under this form of Pantheism men
worshiped various objects in nature; the sun, moon, stars; in
fact, anything and everything that bodied forth to their
minds some quality, or power, or attribute of the Deity. This

174 THE "mormon'' doctrine op deity.

was the Pantheism of Egypt, and led to the abominable and dis-
gusting idolatry of that land.

The Religion of China.

Torn your attention now northward from India, and take
into account those great masses of our race inhabiting China;
and you will find there, according to the statement of Max
MuUer,

A colorless and unpoetical religion; a religion we might almost
venture to call monosyllabic, consisting of the worship of a host of
single spirits, representing the sky;- the sun, storms and lightning,
mountains and rivers; one standing by the side of the other without
any mutual attraction, without any higher principle to hold them
together. In addition to this we likewise meet in China with the
worship of ancestral spirits, the spirits of the departed, who are sup-
posed to retain some cognizance of human affairs, and to possess
peculiar powers which they exercise for good or evil. This double
worship of human and natural spirits constitutes the old and popular
religion of China, and it has lived on to the present day, at least in
the lower ranks of society, though there towers above it a more ele-
vated range of half religious and half philosophical faith, a belief in
two higher Powers, which, in the language of philosophy, may mean
Form and Matter, in the language of ethics. Good and Evil, but
which in the original language of religion and mythology are repre-
sented as Heaven and Earth.^

Such was the ancient religion of China; and such, to a very
large extent, is the religion of China to this day. It must be
remembered that the great Chinese philosopher Confucius did
not disturb this ancient religious belief. He did not, in fact*
profess to be a teacher of religion at all, but was content if he
could but influence men to properly observe human relations.
On one occasion he was asked how the ''spirits could be served,"

^Science of Religion (Muller) pp. 61, 62.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 175

to which he made answer, "If we are not able to serve men,
how can we serve the spirits?" On another- occasion he said to
his followers, "Respect the gods, and keep them at a dis-
tance."*

Religion in Northern Europe.

Let us now enter Northern Europe, among the Germanic
tribes, and make inquiry as to what conceptions of God they
held. Here you find a shadowy, undefined, and not well under-
stood belief in the existence of an all-pervading influence, or
spirit; a Supreme Being, to whom the Goths, at least, gave the
name of "Alfader," meaning the Father of all; yet, strange to
say, they paid him no divine honors, gave him no worship, but
contented themselves in worshiping inferior deities, their old
war heroes in the main, whom they had apotheosized and who,
it must be acknowledged, represented the national qualities of
that people at that time.

Gods of the Greeks and Romans.

Having thus briefly mentioned the faith of the people of
north Europe — and I can do no more than this in each instance
— I next invite your attention to the ideas about God that
obtained among the highly civilized Romans. And, by the way,
the Romans accepted, for the most part, the mythology and
the religion of the Greeks, so that when we consider the ideas
that prevailed among the Romans about God, it must be remem-
bered that we are at the same time considering the views of
God that were entertained by the Greeks— a people noted for
the subtlety of their intellect, for their powers both of analy-
sis and of synthesis: and for intuition of intellect which made
them well nigh prophets, at least of an intellectual, if not of a
spiritual order. The Romans for the most part were divided

* Ibid p. 87.

176 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

into the two great schools of philosophy, the Epicurean and the
Stoic. Some of our young students will be telling me perhaps
that I have overlooked the Academics. I do not mention them
as a school of philosophy for the reason that, in my judgment,
they had no philosophy; they advocated nothing; they were the
agnostics of their time — that is, they were people who did not
know, and like our modem agnostics, had a strong suspicion
that nobody else knew. They represented merely the negative
attitude of mind in their times. Still they numbered in their
following some of the most considerable men of Rome, Cicero
being among the number. By the way, *it is through the writ-
ings of Cicero — especially through his Tusculan Disputations —
that we become best acquainted with the theories of the two
chief schools of philosophy I have mentioned. And it is from
his writings that I shall here condense what I have to say of the
creeds of these schools of philosophy, or at least that part
which concerns us here — the part relating to their conceptions
of Deity, and first as to the Doctrine of Epicurus.

Epicureans,

The Epicureans held that there were Gods in existence.
They accepted the fact of their existence from the constant
and universal opinion of mankind, independent of education,
custom or law. **It must necessarily follow," they said, "that
this knowledge is implanted in our minds, or, rather, innate in
us." Their doctrine was: "That opinion respecting which
there is a general agreement in universal nature must infallibly
be true; therefore it must be allowed that there are Gods."

"Of the form of the Gods, they held that because the
human body is more excellent than that of other animals, both
in beauty and for convenience, therefore the Gods are in human
form. All men are told by nature that none but the human
form can be ascribed to the Gods; for under what other image

THE "mormon*' DOCTRINB OP DEITY. 177

did it ever appear to anyone either sleeping or waking?" Ye*
these forms of the Gods were not "body," but "something like
body;" "nor do they contain blood, but something like blood."
"Nor are they to be considered as bodies of any solidity, or
reducible to number." "Nor is the nature or power of the Gods
to be discerned by the senses, but by the mind." They held,
moreover, that the universe arose from chance; that the Gods
neither did nor could extend their providential care to human
affairs.

The duty of worshiping the Gods was based upon the fact
of their superiority to man. **The superior and excellent nature
of the Gods requires a pious adoration from men, because it is
possessed of immortality, and the most exalted felicity; for
whatever excels has a right to veneration." Yet "all fear of
the power and anger of the Gods should be banished; for we
must understand that an^er and affection are inconsistent with
the nature of a happy and immortal being. These apprehen-
sions being removed, no dread of the superior power remains."
On the same principles that the existence of the Gods was
allowed, that is, on the pre-notion and universal belief of their
existence, it was held that the Gods were happy and immortal,
to which the Epicurians added this doctrine: "That which is
eternally happy cannot be burdened with any labor itself, nor
can it impose any labor on another; nor can it be influenced by
resentment or favor; because things which are liable to such
feelings must be weak and frail."

It was generally held by the opponents of Epicurus that,
as a matter of fact, he did not believe in the existence of the
Gods at all; but dared not deny their existence for fear of the
Athenian law against impiety, and because such denial would
render him unpopular. But after becoming acquainted with his
views as to the nature of the Gods, one is prepared to accept
the criticism of his doctrines which Cicero puts in the mouth

178 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

of Gotta, in his Tusculan Disputations, viz., "Epicurus has
allowed a deity in words but destroyed him in fact.' He ren-
dered his Gods as intangible, as useless, as far removed from
exciting adoration, or of controlling the universe, as have the
orthodox Ghristian sects their Diety, who is said to be without
body, or parts, or passions; which, if such be his nature, leaves
him without quality through which he may aflEect humanity or
the universe either for good or evil.

The Stoics.

I next take up the school of Stoics. The Stoics believed
(1) that there were Gods; (2) they undertook to define their
character and nature; (3) they held that the universe is gov-
erned by them, and (4) that they exercise a superintendency
over human affairs.

The evidence for the existence of the Gods they saw prim-
arily in the universe itself. "What can be so plain and evi-
dent," they argued, "when we behold the heavens, and contem-
plate the celestial bodies, as the existence of some supreme,
divine intelligence by which these things are governed?" "Were
it otherwise," they added, "Ennius would not with universal ap-
probation have said,

Look up to the refulgent heavens above
Which all men call unanimously Jove —
* * * Of Gods and men the sire.

Of the nature of the Deity they held two things: First of
all, that he is an animated though impersonal being; secondly,
that there is nothing in all nature superior to him. "I do not
see," says one well versed in their doctrines, "what can be more
consistent with this idea and pre- conception than to attribute
a mind and divinity to the world, the most excellent of all be-
ings." The God of the Stoics is further described as a corporeal

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 179

being, united to matter by a necessary connection; and, more-
over, as subject to fate, so that he can bestow neither rewards
nor punishments. That this sect held to the extinction of the
soul at death, is allowed by all the learned. The Stoics drew
their philsophy mainly from Socrates and Aristotle. Their cos-
mology was pantheistic, matter and force being the two ultimate
principles, and God 'being the working force of the universe,
giving it unity, beauty and adaptation.

The Jews.

I shall finish this brief review of the prevailing ideas about
Deity at the advent of Messiah by reference to the state of
belief respecting God among the Jews at this period. I have
reserved the consideration of their views upon the subject until
the last advisedly, chiefly for the reason that to their ancestors,
in very ancient times, a knowledge of the true God was re-
vealed. Their ancestors constituted a nation, a people, pecu-
liarly related to God ; chosen by him, it would seem, to stand as
his witnesses among the nations of the earth. But at the
time of the advent of Jesus Christ, the Jews were in an
apostate condition, and ready to reject their God when he
should come. Moreover, their leading teachers, especially in
the two centuries preceding the coming of the Messiah, were
taking every step that their ingenuity could devise for harmon-
izing the truths which God had made known to them with the
more fashionable conceptions of God as entertained by one or
the other of the great sects of philosophy among the Romans.
The way had been prepared for the achievement of this end, in
the first place, by the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into the
Greek language, which version of the Old Testament is usually
called the Septuagint, or the LXX. This latter name is given to it
because of a tradition that the translation was accomplished by
seventy, or about seventy, elders of the Jews. The most gen-

180 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

erally accepted theory concerning it, however, is that it was a
work accomplished at various times between 280 B. 6. and 150
B. G. The books of Moses being first translated as early as the
time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 284-246 B. C, while the Prophets
and Psalms were translated somewhat later. It is not, how-
ever, the time or manner in which the traslation was accom-
plished that we are interested in, but the character of the trans-
lation itself; and of this, Alfred Edersheim, in his "Life and
Times of Jesus, the Messiah," in the division of his work which
treats of the preparation for the Gospel, says of the Septu-
agint:

Patting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making
allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note
certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It
bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt, in its use of Egyptian
words and references, and equally evident traces of its Jewish com-
position. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great
liberty, if not license, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur
along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting
the aid of some able scholars. Distinct Jewish elements are undeni-
ably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tra-
dition, although they are much fewer than some critics have
Supposed. This we can easily understand, since only those traditions
would find a place which at the early time were not only received,
but in general circulation. The distinctly Grecian elements, how-
ever, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist of allusions
to Greek mythological termSf and adaptations of Greek philosophical
ideas. However few, even one well-authenticated instance would lead
us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the charac-
ter of Jewish Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what con-
stitutes the prominent characteristics of the LXX version, which,
for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and
apologetic. Difficulties — or what seemed such — are removed by the
most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it need scarcely

THE •'mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 181

be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially, a strenuous
effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with
their ideas of the Deity.*

Later the same authority points out the fact that the Sep-
tuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures bacame really the peo-
ple's Bible to that large Jewish world through which Christianity
was afterwards to address itself to mankind. ''It was part of
the case/" he adds, ''that this translation should be regarded
by the Hellenists as inspired like the original. Otherwise it
would have been impossible to make final appeal to the very
words of the Greek; still less to find in them a mystical and al-
legorical meaning."t

The foundation thus laid for a superstructure of false phil-
osophy there was not wanting builders who were anxious to
place a pagan structure upon it. About the middle of the
second century B.C., one Aristobulus, a Hellenist Jew of Alexan-
dria, sought to so explain the Hebrew scriptures as "to bring the
Peripatetic philosophy out of the law of Moses, and out of the
other Prophets." Following is a sample, according to Eder-
sheim, of his allegorizing: '*Thu8, when we read that God stood,
it meant the stable order of the world; that he created the
world in six days, the orderly succession of time; the rest of
the Sabbath, the preservation of what was created. And in such
manner could the whole system of Aristotle be found in the
Bible. But how was this to be accounted for? Of course, the
Bible had not learned of Aristotle, but he and all other philos-
ophers had learned from the Bible. Thus, according to Aristo-
bulus, Pythagoras, Plato, and all the other sages, had really

* "Jesus, the Messiah," by Edersheim, vol. I, pp. 27-8, eighth
edition.

t Ibid, p. 29.

182 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

learned from Moses, and the broken rays found in their writ-
ings were united in all their glory in the Torah."*

Following Aristobulus in the same kind of philosophy was
Philo, the learned Jew of Alexandria, born about the year 20 B.
C. He was supposed to be a descendant of Aaron, and belonged
to one of the wealthiest and most influential families among the
merchants of Egypt; and he is said to have united a large share
of Greek learning with Jewish enthusiasm. He followed most
worthily in the footsteps of Aristobulus. According to him,
the Greek sages bad learned their philosophy from Moses, in
whom alone was all truth to be found. "Not indeed, in the
letter," says Edersbeim, *'but under the letter of Holy Scrip-
ture. If in Numbers 23: 19 we read *God is not a man,' and in
Deut. r* 31 that the Lord was 'as a man/ did it not imply on
the one hand the revelation of absolute truth by God, and on
the other, accommodation to those who were weak? Here
then, was the principle of a two- fold interpretation of the Word
of God— the literal and the allegorical. * * ♦ To begin
with the former: the literal sense must be wholly set aside,
when it implies anythiDg unworthy of the Deity — anything
unmeaning, impossible, or contrary to reason. Manifestly this
canon, if strictly applied, would do away not only with all an-
thropomorphisms, but cut the knot wherever difficulties seemed
insuperable. Again, Philo would find an allegorical, along with
the literal, intepretation indicated in the reduplication of a word,
and in seemingly superfluous words, particles, or expressions.
These could, of course, only bear such a meaning on Philo's
assumption of the actual inspiration of the Septuagint ver8ion.''t

* "Jesus, the Messiah," Edersheim, vol. 1, p. 36.

t When one thinks of the mischief that may arise from such
perversions of scripture by the application of Philo's principles of
interpretation, we do not marvel that some of the Jews regarded the
translation of the Seventy "to have been as great a calamity to Israel
as the making of the golden calf."

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 183

Edersheim admits, however, that in the Talmudic canon, the
interpretation where ''any repetition of what had been already
stated, would point to something new;" and holds that these
are comparatively sober rules of exegesis. ''Not so the license,"
he remarks, "which he [Philo] claimed, of freely altering the
punctuation of sentences, and his notion that, if one from
among several synonymous words was chosen in a passage, this
pointed to some special meaning attaching to it. Even more ex-
travagant was the idea that a word which occurred in the Sep-
tuagint might be interpreted according to every shade of
meaning which it bore in the Greek, and that even another
meaning might be given it by slightly altering the letters." Of
Philo's further efforts at harmonizing the revelations of God to
the Jews with the teachings of the Greeks, it will only be neces-
sary to read the following quotation from an authority upon
such subjects:

Philo's doctrine starts from the idea that God is "being" abso-
lutely bare of all quality. All quality in finite beings has limitation,
and no limitation can be predicated of God, who is eternal,
unchangeable, simple substance, free, self-sufficient. To predicate
any quality of God would be to reduce him to the sphere of finite
existence. Of him we can only say that he is, not what he is, and
such purely negative predictions as to his being appear to Philo
* * * the only way of securing his absolute elevation above the
world [that is, above and outside of the material universe]. A consis-
tent application of Philo's abstract conception of God would exclude
the possibility of any active relation of God to the world, and there-
fore of religion; for a being absolutely without quality and movement
cannot be conceived as actively concerned with the multiplicity of
individual things. And so, in fact, Philo does t«ach that the absolute
perfection, purity and loftiness of God would be violated by direct
contact with imperfect, impure, and finite things. But the possibility
of a connection between God and the world is reached through a
distinction which forms the most important point in his theology and

184 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

cosmology. The proper being of God is distinguished from the infinite
multiplicity of divine ideas or forces: God himself is without quality,
but he disposes of an infinite variety of divine forces, through whou
mediation an active relation of God to the world is brought about.
In the details of his teaching as to these mediating entities, Philo is
guided partly by Plato and partly by the Stoics; but at the same time
he makes use of the concrete religious conceptions of heathenism and
Judaism. Following Plato, he first calls them **Ideas," or patterns of
all things; they are thoughts of God, yet possess a real existence, and
were produced before the creation of the sensible world, of which
they are the keys. * * * Philo maintains that the divine forces
are identical with the "demons" of the Greeks and the "angels" of the
Jews, i. e., servants and messengers of God, by means of which he
communicates with the finite world. * * * phiio regards all
individual "ideas" as comprehended in one highest and most general
"idea" or force — the unity of the individual idea — which he calls
the "logos" or "reason" of God, and which is again regarded as oper-
ative "reason." The logos, therefore, is the highest mediator between
God and man, the world, the first-born son of God, the archangel,
who is the vehicle of all revelation, and the high priest who stands
before God on behalf of the world. Through whom the world was
created.*

In all this one may see only too plainly the effort to harmon-
ize Jewish theology with Greek philosophy — an effort to be rid
of the plain anthropomorphism of the Hebrew scriptures for the
incomprehensible "being" of Greek metaphysics.

Thus the Jews — the people who had been chosen to be wit-
nesses for God to the world — appeared to have grown weary of
the mission given to them. Tired were they of standing in a
position where their hands seemed to be raised against all men,
and all men's hands against them. They had lost the spirit that
had supported their fathers, and hence were searching out these

* Professor E. Schurer, of Univerity of Giessen, art. PhiU in
Bncyclo. Brit.

THE "mormon*' doctrine OP DEITY. 185

cowardly compromises by which harmony could be shown to
exist between the philosophy of the Gentiles and the revelations
of God to their fathers.

God Revealed to the World in the Person of Jesus Christ.

This completes the survey I intended to make of this field.
Nowhere have we found a knowledge of the true and living
God. Nowhere a teacher who comes with definite knowledge
of this subject of all subjects— a subject so closely related to
eternal life, that to know God is said in the scriptures to be
life eternal; and of course, the corollary naturally follows, viz ,
not to know God is not to possess eternal life. We can form
no other conclusion from the survey we have taken of the
world's ideas respecting the existence and nature of God, than
that forced upon us — the world stood in sore need of a revela-
tion of God. He whom the Egyptians and Indians sought for
in their Pantheism, must be made known. God, whom Confu-
cius would have men respect, but keep at a distance, must draw
near. The "Alfader" of the Goths, undefined, incomprehensible
to them, must be brought out of the northern darkness into
glorious light. The God-idea that prevailed among the Greek
philosophers must be brought from the mists of their idle spec-
ulations and made to stand before the world. He whom the
Jews were seeking to deny and forsake must be revealed again
to the children of men. And lo! when the vail falls from the
revelation that God gives of himself, what form is that which
steps forth from the background of the world's ignorance and
mystery? A man, as God lives! Jesus of Nazareth— the great
Peasant Teacher of Judea. He is God revealed henceforth
to the world. They who thought God impersonal, with-
out form, must know him henceforth as a person in the
form of man. They who have held him to be without quality,
must henceforth know him as possessed of the qualities of

12

186 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

Jesus of Nazareth. They who have regarded him as infinitely
terrible, must henceforth know him also as infinitely gentle.
Those who would hold him at a distance, will now permit him to
draw near. This is the world's mysterj revealed. This is God
manifested in the flesh. This is the Son of God, who comes to
reveal the Father, for he is the express image and likeness of
that Father's person, and the reflection of that Father's mind.
Henceforth when men shall say. Show us the Father, he shall
point to himself as the complete revelation of the Father, and
say, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also."
Henceforth, when men shall dispute about the "being" and
"nature" of God, it shall be a perfect answer to uphold Jesus
Christ as the complete, perfect revelation and manifestation of
God, and through all the ages it shall be so; there shall be no
excuse for men saying they know not God, for all may known
him, from the least to the greatest, so tangible, so real a revela-
tion has God given of himself in the person and character of
Jesus Christ. He lived his life on earth — a life of sorrow and
of gentleness, its pathway strewn with actions fraught with
mercy, kindness, and love. A man he was, approved of God
among men, by miracles, and wonders and signs which God did
by him. Being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore-
knowledge of God, men took and by wicked hands crucified and
slew him, but God raised him up, having loosed the pains of death,
because it was not possible that he should be holden of it; and
exalted him on high at the right hand of God, whence he shall
come to judge the quick and the dead.*

Mark you, in all this there is not a word about the myster-
ious, ineffable generation of the Son of God from the Father,
together with all the mysteries that men have gathered togeth-
er in their learned disquisitions about God. No question is

*This synopsis of the Christ's life is in Acts 2.

THE ^'mormon*' doctrine OP DEITY. 187

raised as to whether Jesas was made out of nothing or begot-
ten by ineffable generation from the substance of the Father.
Whether he is consubstantial, that is, of the same substance
with the Father, or only of a similar substance. Nor is there
any question raised as to whether Jesus was "begotten" before
or after time began. All these and a hundred other questions
arose after the Christian doctrine of Deity began to come in
contact with the Greek and other philosophies. Jesus accepted
the existence of God as a settled fact, and proclaimed himself
to be the Son of God: offending the Jews by so doing, for they
saw that he made himself equal with God;* and being a man,
held forth himself to be God.f Slow indeed were they to learn
the great truth plainly revealed in Jesus Christ, that God is a
perfect mun. Such was Jesus Christ, and he was God manifested
in the flesh. "Was," did I say? Nay, "is," I should have said;
and such will he remain forever; a spirit he is, clothed with an
immortal body, a resurrected body of tangible flesh and bones
made eternal, and now dwelling in heaven with bis Father, of
whom he is the express image and likeness; as well now as when
he was on earth; and hence the Father also must be a person-
age of flesh and bones, as tangible as the exalted man, Christ
Jesus the Lord.

II.

EVIDENCE OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY FROM THE SCRIPTURE.

It is my desire on this occasion to place in the hands of
the Elders of Israel such tangible proofs from the scriptures
concerning Jesus Christ being "God manifested in the fleeh,"
that they will be able hereafter to maintain the doctrine taught
upon this subject by the Church; it is my desire to cite you
evidence from which our young men may maintain the doctrine

* John 5: 18.
t John 10: 30-33.

188 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

that God is an exalted man. For be it known unto yon, that
plain and from the scriptures indisputable as this doctrine of
ours is, there are those who scorn it, who call it blasphemy,
and who roundly denounce the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat-
ter-day Saints for teaching it.

I call your attention then, first of all, to the fact that

Jesus Christ is Called God in the Scriptures,

The first proof I offer for this statement is from the writ-
ings of Isaiah. You remember perhaps my former quotation
from Isaiah, wherein that prophet says, "Behold, a virgin shall
conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,"* the
interpretation of which name is, according to Matthew, "God
with us."t So that this man-child, born of a woman, and called
"Immanuel," is God; and, moreover, is "God with us" — that is,
with men. The same prophet also says:

For unto us a child is born, uDto us a son is given; and the gov-
ernmeDt shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the
Prince of Peace.i

All concede that this is in plain allusion to Jesus Christ,
and the scriptures here directly call Him "2 Ae Mighty God. He is
also called God in the testimony of John. Mark this language,
for it is a passage around which many ideas center, and to which
we shall have occasion to refer several times. In the preface
to his Gospel, John says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

* * ♦ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and

♦ Isaiah 7: 14.
t Matt. 1:23.
X Isaiah 9: 6.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 189

we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father)
full of grace and truth.

There can be no question but direct reference is here made
to the Lord Jesus Christ, as being the "Word,-" and the "Word,"
or Jesus being with the Father in the beginning, and the "Word,"
or Jesus Christ, also being God. The "Word," then, as used'
here by John, is one of the titles of Jesus in his pre-existent
estate. Why called the "Word" I know not, unless it is that
by a "word" we make an expression; and since Jesus Christ was
to be the expression of God, the revelation of God to the chil-
dren of men, he was for that reason called the "Word."*

Jems Declares Himself to he God— the Son of God:

Jesus was crucified on the charge that he was an impostor
— that he, being a man, said that "God was his Father, making
himself equal with God" (John 5: 18).

And again: "For a good work we stone thee not, but for
blasphemy, and because that thou being a man, makest thyself
God" (John 10: 33).

Again: when accused before Pilate, who declared he could
**find no fault in him," the Jews answered him, "We have a law,
and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the
Son of God." Moreover, the high priest, in the course of ^is
trial before the Sanhedrim of the Jews, directly said to JeiSus,
"I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou
be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast

* Since the delivery of the above discourse I note the following in
a revelation to Joseph Smith: "In the beginning the Word was, for he
[Christ] was the Word, even the Messenger of Salvation,*' (Doc. and
Cov. Sec. 93.) That is, it appears that Messiah was called the
"Word" because He was the "Messenger" — "the Messenger of Salva-
tion."

190 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

said: nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the
Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in
the clouds of heaven" (Matt 27: 63, 64).

And finally, when Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples
after his resurrection, be said unto them, ''AH power is given
* unto me, in heaven and in earth, go ye therefore and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28: 18, 19). A clearer
proclamation of his divinity could not be made than in the
statement, ''all power is given uqto me in heaven and in earth,''
especially when it is followed by placing himself on equal foot-
ing with the Father and the Holy Ghost, which he does when
he commands his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Nothing can be added to
this, except it be the words of God the Father directly addressed
to Jesus, when he says, "Thy throne, God, is for ever and
ever"(Heb. 1:8).

Jesus Christ to he Worshiped, hence God.

Jesus Christ is to be worshiped by men and angels; and
worship is an honor to be paid only to true Deity. The angels
of heaven refuse the adoration we call worship. You remem-
ber when the Apostle John was on the isle of Patmos, and God
sent a heavenly messenger to him, how the Apostle overawed
by the brightness of his glory fell upon his face to worship
him, and the angel said: '*See thou do it not: for I am thy
fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them
which keep the sayings of this book: Worship God."* So you
see the angels refuse divine honors. But the scriptures prove
that Jesus was especially to be worshiped; hence he must be
Deity:

*Rev. 19: 10,

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 191

Fer onto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my
son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a
Father, and he shall be to me a Son. And again, when he bringeth
in the First Begotten into the world, he saith, let all the angels of
God worship him,*

The same doctrine is taught in the epistle to the Philip-
pians:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a
name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of things ii heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.f

There are other passages to the same effect, but it is per-
haps unnecessary for me to turn to each of these since the
ones here quoted will be sufficient to establish in your minds the
fact contended for.

Jesus Christ is the Creator, hence God,

Jesus Christ is the Creator. Evidence of this is found in
the testimony of John from which I have already quoted.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing
made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light
of men.J

Again in the epistle to the Colossians:

The Father * * * hath delivered us from the power of
darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of h * *

who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creat-

* Heb. 1: 5, 6.
t Phil. 2: 9, 10.
t 1: 1-4.

192 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

ure. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him.*

Again la Hebrews:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times
past unto the fathers-by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by
whom also he made the worlds.

Now we begin to see the relation of the Father and the
Son; for though the **Word" be God, though "Immanuer is God,
that is, "God with us," He does not displace God the Father,
but stands in the relationghip of a son to him. Under the
direction of the Father, he created worlds, and in this manner
is the Creator of our earth, and the heavens connected with the
earth. And everywhere the scriptures command that men should
worship the Creator. In fact the burden of the cry of that
angel who is to restore the gospel in the hour of God's judg-
ment is.

Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment
is come: and worship him that made heaven and earth and the seas
and the fountains of waters.f

Jesus Christ equal with God the Father, hence God.

After the resurrection, Jesus appeared unto his disciples,
and said to them, as recorded in the closing chapter of Mat-
thew:

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the

* Col. 1: 12-17.
t Rev. 14: 7.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 193

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.*

Observe that the Lord Jesus Christ is placed upon a foot-
ing of equal dignity with God the Father, and with the Holy
Ghost. This brings to mind the scripture of Paul, where he
says, speaking of Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God.f

So also is Christ given equal station with the Father and
with the Holy Ghost in the apostolic benediction over and over
again.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and
the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all.

In these several passages we have Jesus Christ, after his
resurrection, asserting that all power had been given unto him,
both in heaven and in earth; he is placed upon a footing of
equal dignity with God the Father in the holy Trinity — in the
Grand Triumvirate which constitutes the Presiding Council or
Godhead reigning over our heavens and our earth— hence God.

I now wish to give you the proof that Jesus Christ is the
express image of the Father; the express image of his person,
as well as the revelation of the attributes of God. Following
that language in Hebrews where Jesus is spoken of as having
created worlds under the direction of the Father, it is said:

Who being the brightness of his [the Father's] glory, and the
express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of

* Matt. 28: 18, 19.
t Phil. 2: 6.

194 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

his power, when be had by himself purged oar sins, sat down at the
right hand of the Majesty on high.*

So Paul to the Corinthians:

The God of this world hath blinded the minds of those which
believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who U the
image of God, should shine unto them.f

So also, in his letter to the Colossians, when speaking of
Christ Paul says:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every
creature.J

Being "the express image of his person," then the "image
of the invisible God," Jesus becomes a revelation of the person
of God to the children of men, as well as a revelation of his
character and attributes. Again, you have the scriptures
saying:

For it pleased the Father that in him [Christ Jesus] should all
fullness dwell. * * * For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily.§

All there is, then, in God, there is in Jesus Christ. All
that Jesus Christ is, God is. And Jesus Christ is an immortal
man of flesh and bone and spirit, and with his Father and the
Holy Spirit will reign eternally in the heavens.

III.

THE CHARACTER OF GOD REVEALED IN THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST.

Having proved from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is
God, and the revelation of God to man, I come to another

* Heb. 3: 3.
t II Cor. 4. 4.
t Col. 1:5.
§ Col. 1: 19; ?: 9.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 195

branch of my subject. I now wish to show you that Jesus Christ
manifested God also in his life; and although I have been ad-
dressing you for some time, 1 am quite sure you yourselves would
not be entirely satisfied with the treatise upon this subject,
unless I pointed out how God would act under the variety
of circumstances in which it is our privilege to behold him
placed.

The Humility oj God.

First of all, I call your attention to the deep, the profound
humility of God; his great condescen^^ion in giving among men,
as he did, for our instruction; and from that circumstance
would draw to your attention the lesson of humility his life
teaches. The heights of glory to which Jesus had attained,
the power and dignity of his position in the heavenly king-
dom, of course, cannot be comprehended by us in our present
finite condition, and with our limited knowledge of things.
Great and exalted as we might think him to be, you may depend
upon it he was exalted infinitely higher than that. Then when
}0U think of one living and moving in the courts of heaven and
mingling in the councils of the Gods, consenting to come down
to this earth and pass through the conditions that Jesus passed
through, do you not marvel at his humility? To be born under
such circumstances as would enable wicked man to cast reflection
upon his very birth!* To be born, too, in a stable, and to be
cradled in a manger! To grow up a peasant, with a peasant's
labor to perform, and a peasant's fare to subsist upon from
childhood to manhood— do you not marvel at this great humility,
at this great condescension of God? And by his humility, a,rQ

* St. JohD 8: 41.

196 THE "mormon" doctrine op DEirr.

not men taught humility, as they are taught it by no other
circumstance whatsoever!

The Obedience qf God.

Of his youth, we know but little; but the little we
know reveals a shining quality, either for God or man to
possess. You must remember, in all our consideration of the
life of Messiah, one truth, which comes to us from the
scriptures in an incidental way, viz., that **In his humiliation his
judgment was taken from him."* As the veil is drawn over our
minds when our pre- existent spirits come into this world, and
we forget the Father and mother of the spirit world, and the
positions we occupied there, so, too, with Jesus; in his humilia-
tion his judgment was taken from him; he knew not at
first whence he came, nor the dignity of his station in heaven.
It was only by degrees that he felt the Spirit working within
him and gradually unfolding the sublime. idea that he was
peculiarly and pre-eminently the Son of God in very deed. When
at Jerusalem, about twelve years of age, he began to be
conscious of the suggestions of the Spirit within him, and
hence allowed the caravan with which he had come from
distant Galilee to Judea to start upon the return journey
without him, much to the perplexity and sorrow of his
supposed father, Joseph, and his mother Mary. They
missing him, returned and found him in the temple disputing
with the doctors and lawyers. They reprimanded him, as they
would reprimand any boy guilty of similar conduct; but when
they reproved him, he answered, "Wist ye not that I must be
about my Father's business." He began to understand his
mission. The spirit promptings were at work in his soul.
And while ultimately the spirit was given without measure

* Acts 8: 33.

Mb "mormon^ doctrine op deity. 197

unto him,* it was not so at first, for **He recived not of the
fullness at the first, but received grace for grace."t The
child Jesus "grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wis-
dom: and the grace of God was upon him. * * * And
Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God
and man."t But notwithstanding Jesus, at twelve years of age,
and earlier, began to experience the operations of the Spirit
calling his soul to his mission, still we are told that he returned
with his parents to Galilee, "and was subject unto them." He
who had given the law, "Honor thy father and thy mother,"
in this act exemplified the honor that he entertained for that
law, in his practice of it.

We next see him coming to the banks of Jordan, where a
prophet of God is baptizing — one of those strange, eccentric
men, who lived for the most part in the wilderness, whose food
was locusts and wild honey, and whose clothing was the skins
of wild animals; and yet through all this eccentricity, through
all this oddness of character, shone the divine powers of God
in this messenger, and multitudes of people gathered to his
preaching by the Jordan, where he baptized them for the re-
mission of their sins. By and by, Jesus comes and demands
baptism at this man's hands; and as he enters the water, the
prophet stays him, and says, **1 have need to be baptized of thee,
and comest thou to me?" Already, doubtless, shining, through
this "expression of God,"— this Jesus of Nazareth,— the servant
of the Lord, in attune, through the spirit of inspiration, with
the very God who was approaching him, felt the divinity of his
presence, and would fain acknowledge his own inferiority.
What was the reply? "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it
becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." He who had said that

* St. John 3: 34.

t Doc. and Gov., Sec. 93: 12, 13.

t Luke 2: 40, 52.

198 THE "mormon'* doctrine op deity.

men must be baptized for the remission of sins, though him-
self sinless, would honor that law by obedience unto it.
Thus we learn that God can not only give law, but he can
obey law. Indeed, only those who know how to obey law are
qualified to make it.

The Patience oj God Under Temptation.

Next we shall see how God, in the person of Jesus Christ,
manages himself under temptation. After his baptism, he was
driven of the spirit into the wilderness, where he fasted forty
days and forty nights. There under the quiet stars, and in the
desert, he was consecrating his life to the service of God the
Father, and gathering to himself those spiritual forces, and
calling up those divine powers, that should carry him through
the three years of storm and tempest that must be his in the
fulfillment of his mission. When he had reached his greatest
point of weakness, when ''an hungered," and fainting from
his long fast, whom do you suppose came into his presence to
tempt him? No other than his arch-enemy; the one with whom
he contended in the councils of God before the foundations of
this earth were laid, when the great plan of life and salvation
was being discussed — Lucifer, in the full pride of his strength
and glory came tempting him. I say Lucifer came in the
fullness of his strength and glory; for I take it that at this
time he had well-nigh reached the pinnacle of his power. We
have seen that he had blinded all the races of men respecting
God. Truly, he held the nations of the world and their glory
within his own hands: and the knowledge of the true God was
not had among men. Proudly, therefore, he steps to the side
of the weakened God, to propound certain questions to him.
In substance, he said, ''You have had whisperings of the Spirit
that you are Deity, that you are the Son of God. If so,
exercise your creative power, turn these stones into bread, and

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 19^

Satisfy your hunger. Come, since you are a God, you must
needs have creaUve powers; try it upon these stones and
hunger no more." God, in the presence of his arch-enemy, still
retained his humility, and answered out of the scriptures: ''It
is written, Man shall not live by bread alone."

After that, Lucifer takes the Christ to the pinnacle of the
temple, and tries him upon another side — a side upon which
good men are particularly vulnerable, the side of their vanity,
that prompts them to believe they are the special favorites
of heaven, and that God had given his angels charge concerning
them. Christ's tempter said, **If thou be the Son of God, cast
thyself down: for it is written, he shall give his angels charge
concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up,
lest at any time thou dash tby foot against a stone." Again
the Son of God answers in humility, and still out of the scrip-
tures: **It is written also. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Because God has given you certain promises, you apostles, and
prophets, and men of God; because you, by your righteousness,
perchance have made yourselves of the elect of God, it is not
becoming that you should be putting God constantly upon
trial. "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Walk your
pathway in the light of common sense, and be not puffed up
with vanity because there is something special in your relation-
ship with God.

Lucifer next approaches Jesus upon the side most vulner-
able of all, in quick and mighty spirits — on the side of ambition.
I take it that there have been but few strong men who have
not felt the desire to rule, to govern; and not always selfishly,
either, or for personal ends, but sometimes out of an honest
thought that they can do somewhat of good to humanity. Even
good men may love power, and may aspire to the righteous ex-
ercise of it. It was upon this side that Lucifer sought to
break in upon the virtue of Jesus. He unveils the kingdoms of

200 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY.

the world; which he holds in his thraldom; he reveals their
glory, and the might and majesty to which men may attain, if
only they can grasp the sceptre of some great empire. Now,
says he, **A11 these things will I give thee, if thou wiU fall
down and worship me." He who has answered in tones so hum-
ble up to this point; and has endured the taunts and question-
ings of his great enemy with becoming modesty and humility, now,
evidently, feels stirring within him some of those master pow-
ers that may shake the world and send the stars out of their
courses, **Get thee hence, Satan," said he, **for it is written.
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve " The spirit of the Son of God was aroused, it was time
for Lucifer's departure, and so he left Jesus, and angels came
and ministered unto him. So God deports himself under trial
and temptation. How splendid the lesson for man !

The Compassion and Impartiality of God.

Jesus was possessed of infinite compassion. The incidents
that I shall relate to you, in support of this statement, are in
quotations that are free, and yet, I think, justified by the spirit
of the several occasions. After all, it is the spirit that giveth
life; the letter killeth; so let us look at these things in the
spirit of them. You see him one day with some of his disciples
approaching the little village of Nain, ''his raiment dusty and
his sandals worn." As they draw near, the gate is opened and
a funeral procession marches out. The mother of the young
man whose body is being borne by his neighbors to the final
resting place, walks feebly and weeping beside the bier, deso-
late in her loneliness. As Jesus saw that poor woman in the
midst of her sorrow, his heart— I pray you think of it, for we
are speaking of God when we speak of Jesus Christ, the Creator
of heaven and earth^^the heart of God, is moved with compas-
sion towards this woman. He stops the bier, takes the dead by

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 201

the hand, and says, ''Young man, I say unto yon, Arise." And
he arose. Jesus Christ gave this woman back her son. It was
an act of beautiful compassion* one of many, which illustrates
how tender and sympathetic is the heart of our God !

Nor was his ministry confined exclusively to the poor, to
the widows, to the lonely. He despised not rulers, nor the rich,
because they were rich; but was willing, if only they could put
themselves in a position to receive the manifestations of his
compassion — he was willing to minister unto them. This is
proved in the case of Jairus, one of the rulers of the Jews,
and a man of great wealth. You will remember that he came
running to the Master with his sorrow — his daughter was lying
dangerously ill at home; and such was his faith that if the
Master would but speak the word, she would be healed. While
yet he spake, one of his servants came running, saying, "Thy
daughter is dead: trouble not the'^Master." But Jesus heeded
not the word of the servant. He had heard Jairus' cry of faith,
and responsive to that faith-cry, he made his way to the home of
the ruler, put out those who were unbelieving, and taking
the maid by the hand, gave her back to the gladness of life,
into the arms of the joyous father. The faith of that rich man
was as great as the faith of any we meet with in all the minis-
try of the Lord. So, wealth is not necessarily a hindrance to
faith. God is as close to the faithful rich as to the faithful
poor, and as ready to grant them his mercy, according to their
faith. I sometimes think we make a mistake when we would
flout those who are rich and put them outside the pale of God's
mercy and .goodness because of what may be nothing but a
prejudice — which in reality may be our envy — of the rich.

While on the way to the ruler's house, another Incident
happened that is very remarkable. A woman in the throng, a
long time afilicted with a grievous^ailment, said in her heart as
she saw him pass, "If I may but touch his garment,;, I shall be

18

202 THE

whole." Accordingly she crowded her way forward, dropped
upon her knee, clutched the garment, and received the divine
power from him which cleansed her body and healed her com-
pletely. Jesus, observing that something had happened to him,
turned to the apostles and said, "Who touched me ?" They
replied, "Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and
sayest thou. Who touched me?" as if that was not to be ex-
pected in such a crowd. Ah! said Jesus, but "I perceive that
virtue is gone out of me." What was it? Simply that through
this poor woman's faith — who supposed herself so far removed
from God that she dare- not come into his presence and ask for
the blessing she desired, but undertook to obtain it by indirect
means — through her faith and touching the garment of the
Lord, the healing virtues passed from God to her in such a
tangible manner that he felt their departure, just as some of
you elders, when administering to one who was full of faith
have felt your spiritual strength and life go out from you leav-
ing you weak and almost helpless, but giving healthful life to
the afflicted. I speak to men who have experience in these
things, and I know that scores of you could bear witness to the
truth of this phenomenon. If our lives can but touch the life
of God, such is his nature that we shall partake of the virtues
that go out from him.

What shall I say of lepers that crowded into Messiah's pres-
ence, and who, notwithstanding the loathsomeness of their [dis-
ease, found sympathy and help from contact with him? What of
the blind, the lame, the halt? Why, let us not speak of them; for
though it is a great thing that their bodies should be healed,
and they should go through the community singing the praises
of him who had restored them, there are better things to speak
of — the healing of men's souls, the purifying of their spirit49.

God's Treatment of Sinners.

Let us ask, rather, how did Jesus Christ — God — deal with

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 203

sinners ? I take one incident that has always appealed very strong-
ly tome, and illustrates the spirit in which Christ deals with sin-
ners; for this God of ours is peculiarly the friend of sinners, not
because of their sins, however, but in spite of them; and because
of his compassion upon those so unfortunate as to be under the
bondage of sin. The over-righteous Pharisees of Christ's time
would not for the world come in contact with sinful men, lest
they themselves should be polluted. They gathered the robes
of their scanctity about them, and considered themselves in
such close relation with God that they could afford to despise
his poor, unfortunate, sinful children, instead of holding out
the hand that would bring them from the kingdom of darkness
into the brightness and glory of the kingdom of God. But not
so with Jesus Christ. When he was accused by this class of
men of mingling with publicans and sinners, his answer to them
was, "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that
are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to re-
pentance." As if he had said, you who are righteous and
have no need of healing for sin, stand by yourselves; my mis-
sion is not to you, but to those who have need of God's help.
Such was the spirit of his answer. The incident to which I re-
fer as illustrative of his compassion for sinners, is this: The
Jews were always on the alert to entrap the Messiah's feet and
bring him into contradiction with the law of Moses. The law
of Moses, as first given to Israel, was that if any should be
found in adultery they should be stoned to death; but the Rab-
bis, by nice discriminations of words, practically had rendered
that law a dead letter, by reason, of which the adulterers in
Israel escaped the punishment that God had decreed against
them. Therefore, they thought if they could take a person
who unquestionably had been guilty of this crime and bring him
or her into the presence of Jesus, they would either bring him
in conflict with the law of Moses, or with the tradition of the

204 THE

elders, and in either case would have snfScient cause to de-
nounce him before the people. So they found a woman, caught
in the act; they dragged her through the streets, and
cast her at his feet. ''Master," said they, "this woman was
taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law com-
manded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"
He replied, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast
a stone at her." One by one they slunk away, until the woman
was left alone with Jesus. When Jesus looked around, and saw
none but the woman, he said to her, ''Woman, where are thine
accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" "No man, Lord,"
she said. Then Jesus said: "Neither do I condemn thee: go
and sin no more." That is how God deals with sinners. It is
written that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of
allowance, and that is true, he cannot; but how about the sin-
ner? Why, he may look upon the sinner with infinite compas-
sion. While sin must always be hateful, yet will he help and
love the sinner, if he will but go his way and sin no more. Such
is our human weakness, and so nearly the level upon which we
all move, that there is none of us but will plead mightily for
mercy; and, thank God, we shall not plead in vain; for, while
our Judge cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance,
his heart goes out in compassion and love to men and he will
help them to overcome sin, to fight a good fight, to keep the
faith, and at last enable them to win the crown in the kingdom
of our God.

God's Spirit of Toleration.

Jesus, moreover, was tolerant. You will recall the circum-
stance of his having to go through Samaria, and you remember
that the Samaritans hated the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew. Some
of his disciples went into a village of Samaria, through which
Jesus would have to pass, and sought to make arrangements for

THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 205

the Master to stay over night; but the Samaritans closed their
doors against him. They had heard of him; he was a Jew; and
in the narrowness of their minds they would not admit the
hated Jew into their homes. This very much angered the disci-
ple John, who loved Jesus dearly. He was one of the "sons of
thunder/' and possessed |of a spirit that could love; and being
strong in love, as is often the case — I was going to say as is
always the case — he was likewise strong in hating. He was the
type of man that does both heartily. Hence, he went to the
Master and asked him if he might not call down fire from heav-
en upon those Samaritans for thus rejecting the Master. Jesus
replied: **Ye know not what spirit ye are of. The Son of Man
came to save, not to destroy." A broadness, a liberality truly
glorious.

Jesus was properly broad minded — liberal. On one occasion
some of the disciples found one casting out devils in the name
of Jesus, and they forbade him, because he followed not the
Master. When they came into the presence of Jesus, they re-
ported this case and told what they had done. Jesus said, "For-
bid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my
name, that can lightly speak evil of me." Then he gave us the
other half of that truth, "He that is not for me is against me,"
by saying, "For he that is not against us is for us." Thus he
corrected the narrow-mindedness of his own apostles.

The Severity oj God.

But notwithstanding all his mercy, his tolerance, his pa-
tience and gentleness, there were times when he who was so
infinitely merciful could also be infinitely just; he who was so
infinitely compassionate could be infinitely severe. I give you
an instance of it. He had struggled long and hard with those
hypocrites, the Scribes and Pharisees; and fiially the voice of

206 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

justice and reproof, as it is to be found in God, speaks forth
through Jesus Christ, and this is what he said:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up
the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves,
neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and
for a pretense make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive the
greater damnation.

That is not so gentle, is it? Listen again:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass
sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make
him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you,
ye blind guides, which say. Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it
is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he
is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or
the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever, shall swear
by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever aweareth by the gift that
is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater,
the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? * * * Ye
blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe
unto you, scribes and Pharisees! for ye make clean the outside of the
cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and
excess. Thou blind Pharisee,cleanse first that which is within the cup
and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto
you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited
sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within
full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also
outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of
hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypo-
crites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the
sepulchres of the righteous, and say. If we had been in the days of
our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the
blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves,
that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye

TfiE "mormon*' doctrine OF DEITY. 207

tip then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of
yipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

And this from that gentle, compassionate man! The voice
of God in its severity speaks through these tones, and bids us
understand that it must be a terrible thing to fall under the
displeasure of Grod. Think of the infinite difference between
that sweet compassion which he has for the penitent sinner, and
this severe but just arraignment of those who persist in their
sins! A warning to all men to beware of the justice of God,
when once it shall be aroused!

God Completely Revealed Through Christ.

My friends, this Jesus Christ is God manifested in the
flesh, proved to be so from the scripture; the character of God
is revealed in the wonderful life that Jesus, the Son of God,
lived on earth; in it we see God in action; and from it we see
the gentleness, the compassion, and also the justice and severity
of God. Jesus Christ is God; and he is also man; but I take
no stock in those sectarian refinements which try to tell us
about the humanity of Jesus being separate from the divinity
of Jesus. He himself made no such distinctions. He was
divine, spirit and body, and spirit and body was exalted to
the throne of his Father, and sits there now with all the powers
of the Godhead residing in him bodily, an immortal, glorified,
exalted man! The express image and likeness God of the
Father; for as the Son is, so is the Father. . Yet when we an-
nounce to the world that we believe God to be an exalted man,
we are told that we are blasphemers. But as long as the
throne of Jesus Christ stands sure, so long as his spirit remains
in his immortal body of flesh and bones, glorified and everlasting,
shall keep his place by the side of the Father, so long will the
doctrine that God is an exalted man hold its place against the
idle sophistries of the learned world. The doctrine is true. It

208 THE **MORMON'* DOCTRINE OP DEITY.

canot be unthroned. A truth is a solemn thing. Not the
mockery of ages, not the lampooning of the schoolmen, not the
derision of the multitude, not the blasphemy of the world, can
affect it; it will always remain true. And this doctrine, announced
by Joseph Smith to the world, that God is an exalted man, that
Jesus Christ is the revelation of God to the world, and that he is
just like his Father, and that those who are his brethren may be-
come as he is, when they have walked in his footsteps — that is
a doctrine that will stand sure and fast as the throne of God
itself. For Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh. He
was the revelation of God to the world. He was and is and
ever will remain an exalted man. He is, and always will re-
main, God.

CHAPTER V.

A COLLECTION OF PASSAGES FROM "mORMON" WORKS, SETTING
FORTH "mormon" VIEWS OF DEITY.

In this chapter I present a collection of "Mormon" utter-
ances on the subjects of Deity, of man, and of his relationship
to God. They are selected from discourses and other writings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, from the Book of Mormon, the
revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great
Price, some of the earlier Church publications, and last of all,
I give, by permission, a recent discourse by President Joseph
P. Smith. These utterances are arranged in an order, and
with the view of establishing the fact that from the beginning
of what the world calls "Mormonism," the views contended for
in the body of this work, have been the doctrine of the Church.

7 he Father and the Son are Represented as Distinct Persons,
and also as Being in the Form of Men, in the First Vision
of the Prophet of the New Dispensation.

It is well known that while the Prophet Joseph Smith was a
lad, but fourteen years of age, he became much exercised on the
subject of religion, and very much perplexed in consequence of
the division and strife existing among the religious sects, by
which he was surrounded. And now his own account as to how
he sought wisdom and obtained a very important revelation, in

210 THE "mormon*' docteine op deity.

which he learned very important truths, both concerning God
and the state of the religions world:

In the midst of this war of words and tumnlt of opinions, I often
said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are
right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right,
which is it, and how shall I know it? While I was laboring under
the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of
religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chap-
ter and fifth verse, which reads:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all
men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall he given him.

Never did any passage of seripture come with more power to
the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to
enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected
on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom
from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could
get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the
teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same
passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in
settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in
darkness and confusion, or else 1 must do as James directs, that is,
ask of God. I at length came to the determination to ask of God,
concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and
would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God,
I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning
of a beautiful clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and
twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an
attempt, for amidst all my anxieties, I had never as yet made the at-
tempt to pray vocally.

After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed
to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled
down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 211

scarcely done so when immediately I was seized upon by some power
which entirely overcome me, and had such an astonishing influence
over me, as to bind my tougue so that I could not speak. Thick
darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I
were doomed to sudden destruction.

But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out
of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me; and at the
very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon my-
self to destruction — not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of
some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous
power as I had never before felt in any being — ^just at this moment
of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above
the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell
upon me. It no sooner appeared than I felt myself delivered from
the enemy which held me bound.

When the light rested upon me / saw two personages^ whose bright-
ness and glory drfy all description, standing above me in the air. One
of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the
other: "This is my beloved Son, hear Himr

My object in going to enquire of the Lord, was to know, which,
of all the sects, was right; that I might know which to join. No
sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to
speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light,
which, of all the sects, was right— and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all
wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their
creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were
all corrupt; that they draw near to me with their lips, but their
hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments
of men, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.

He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other
things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. *

* Pearl of Great Price, pp. 83-85. Also History of Church
Vol. I, pp. 4-6.

2l2 THE **MORMON** DOCTRINE OP IDEITY.

Of the importance of this vision, and the effects growing
out of it, I have elsewhere said:

First, it is a flat contradiction to the sectarian assumption
that revelation had ceased; that God had no further com-
munication to make to man.

Second, it reveals the errors into which men had fallen,
concerning the personages of the Godhead. It makes it mani-
fest that God is not an incorporeal being without form, or body,
or parts; on the contrary he appeared to the Prophet in the
form of a man, as he did to the ancient prophets. Thus, after
centuries of controversy, the simple truth of the scriptures,
which teach that man was created in the likeness of God —
hence God must be the same in form as man — was re-affirmed.

Third, it corrected the error of the theologians respecting
the oneness of the persons of the Father and the Son. Instead
of being one person, as the theologians teach, they are distinct
in their personality; and there is a plurality of Gods, for the
Father and the Son are two individuals, as much so as any father
and son on earth; and the oneness of the Godhead referred to
in the scriptures, must have reference to unity of purpose and
of will; the mind of one being the mind of the other, and so as
to will and other attributes. In other words, the oneness of
the Godhead is a moral and spiritual union, not a physical one.

The announcement of these truths, coupled with that other
truth proclaimed by the Son of God, viz,: that none of the sects
and churches of Christendom were acknowledged as the church
or kingdom of God, furnish the elements for a religious revolu-
tion that will affect the very foundations of modern Christian
theology. In a moment, all the rubbish concerning theology,
which had accumulated through all the centuries since the gos-
pel and authority to administer its ordinances had been taken
from the earth, was grandly swept aside — the living rocks of
truth were made bare upon which the Church of Christ was to

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 218

be founded — a New Dispensation of the gospel was about to be
committed to the earth — God had raised up a witness for
himself among the children of men.*

THE DOCTRINE OP THE GODHEAD ACCORDING TO THE BOOK OP

MORMON.

The Book of Mormon is not a formal treatise on the sub-
ject of theology. It is in the main an abridgment of ancient
Nephite and Jaredite records, and recounts the hand-dealings
of God with these ancient peoples. The existence of God it
takes for granted, and, of course, since its revelations are local,
that is, they pertbin to this earth and its inhabitants only, it
has reference to our Godhead alone. It makes reference,
therefore, only to our God, and speaks of him in the singular
number — as being one. But notwithstanding this, the three
persons of the Godhead are frequently spoken of as being
separate and distinct personalities, as the following passages
will illustrate. A Nephite prophet, reasoning upon the subject
of the resurrection and the restoration that will be brought
about in connection therewith, says:

But all things shall be restored to their perfect frame, as they
are now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned be-
fore the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy
Spirit, which is one eternal God, to be judged according to thtir
works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. *

Again, the Savior when instructing the Nephites in the
manner of baptizing, said:

And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling
them [those to be baptized] by name; saying: Having authority given

* New Witnesses for God, vol. I, pp. 173-4.

* Alma, 11:44.

214 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. * * *

And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name, for behold, verily
I say unto you; that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are
one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father
and I are one. * * * * ^j^^ ^^^^ ^

my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto
me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record
of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me.
* * * * This is my doctrine, and 1 bear record

of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me, believe th in the
Father also, and unto him will the Father bear record of me; for he
will visit him with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. *

Also the Prophet Mormon, speaking of the work of Christ,

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world,
whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day,
hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his king-
dom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father
and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God. f

Seeing, then, that reference is so frequently made to the
members of the Godhead as separate and distinct persons, it is
clear that the Book of Mormon is in harmony with the views
contended for in the body of this work, as to the plurality of
Gods, and the doctrine receives increased emphasis from other
passages of the work. The Prophet Alma, for instance, says:

He [God] gave commandments unto men, they having first
transgressed the first commandments as to things which were tem-
poral, and becoming as Gods, knowing good from evil, etc.

*inNephi, 11: 24-27; 32, 35.
t Mormon, 7: 7.
t Alma. 12: 31.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 215

Then again, the Savior when instructing the Nephite
apostles, said to them:

Ye shall be judges of this people, according to the judgment
which I shall give unto you, which shall be just; therefore, what
manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto] you, even as I
am. ♦ « ♦ ^t ^^^ yg gjjj^ij gj^ dowu in

the Kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the
Father hath given me fullness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and
I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one. *

If the disciples became as Christ, and Christ, we are as-
sured, is as the Father is, then these words of Jesus contem-
plate that these men will become as God now is, and hence
Gods, and hence a plurality of Gods.

With reference to the form of God, the Book of Mormon
has two very important and very emphatic passages on the
subject. The first Nephi, in a great vision given to him of the
future, was attended by a spirit who gave him explanations, as
the several parts of his vision passed before him. And now
Nephi's account:

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me. Look! and I
looked, and beheld a tree; ♦ * * * ^i^^

the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding all beauty, and
the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.
And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit:
I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious
above all. And he said unto me: What desirest thou? And I said
unto him: To know the interpretation thereof; for I spake unto him
as a man speaketh;/or / beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet,
nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spakp. un-
to me as a man speaketh with another, f

* III Nephi, 27: 27; 28: 10,
1 1 Nephi, 11:8-11,

216 THE "mormon'' doctrinb op deity.

The second passage alluded to is found in the book of
Ether. The Prophet Moriancumr, the brother of Jared, when
about to depart with his colony in barges across the great
deep, had prepared certain stones which he prayed the Lord to
make luminous, that they might have light in the barges while
on their journey. He had approached the Lord with great
faith, and expressed full confidence in the power of God to do
the thing for which he prayed; and now the Book of Mormon
statement of the matter:

And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said
these words, behold the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched
the stones, one by one with his finger; and the vail was taken from
off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the
Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood;
and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck
with fear. * * ^ * ^^^ ^jj^ Loj.^ o^j^

unto him, arise, why hast thou fallen? And he said unto the Lord, I
saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for
I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. And the Lord said
unto him, Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon
me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such ex-
ceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so, you could not have
seen my finger. ^ * * * ^^^j when he had

said these words, behold, the Lord shewed himself unto. him, and said.
Because thou knowest these things, you are redeemed from the fall;
therefore you are brought back inco my presence ; therefore I shew
myself unto you. Behold, I am he who was prepared from the
foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Christ.
I am the Father and the Son.* In me shall all mankind have light,

* This expression made several times in the Book of Mormon,
should not confuse the reader. Jesus is spoken ;_^of in this passage
as both Father and Son for the reason that he received of the full-
ness of the Father; that is, a fullness of his glory, his power, and
dominion, hence Jesus represented God in his completeness — ''in

THE "mormon*^ doctrine Of DEITY. 217

and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and
they shall become my sons and my daughters. And never have I
shewed myself unto, man whom I have created, for never has man
believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that thou art created after
mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning,
after mine own image. Behold, this body, which you now behold, is
the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my
spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit, will I ap-
pear unto my people in the flesh.*

From this it will be seen that the Book of Mormon is in harmony
with the Bible's plain anthropomorphism; as also the one is in har-
mony with the other in affirming the necessary plurality of Gods.

THE DOCTRINES OP THE GODHEAD AND MAN ACCORDING TO THE
BOOK OP ABRAHAM.

The book of Abraham came into the hands of the Prophet
Joseph Smith in the form of Egyptian papyrus, in the summer of
1835. The following winter in his history the Prophet frequently
speaks of working upon the translation of this ancient record.
The translation was not completed and published, however, un-
til March, 1842, at Nauvoo, when it appeared in the nmes and
Seasons, numbers 9 and 10, Vol. III. In his writings and teach-

* Ether 3: 6-16.

him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2: 9); hence
Deity complete, hence both Father and Son. In another sense also
is Jesus the **very eternal Father of heaven and earth:" he is the im-
mediate creator of them: and to the extent that a creator may be
regarded as a father, Jesus may be regarded as the very eternal
Father of heaven and earth. He is called the Son because he taber-
nacled in the flesh, and, in his earthly career, received not a fullness
of the Godhead at first. SeeJDoctrine and Covenants, Sec. 93. Also
Mosiah 15: 1-4, and the remarks of President Joseph F. Smith in
this chapter.

14

218 tHE "mormon'^ DOCmiNB Olf DBlTt.

ings the Prophet frequently refers to this ancient record with
every mark of approval. In the first publication of the work
the introductory heading declared it to be "the Book of Abra-
ham, written by his own hand upon papyrus/' It will be un-
derstood, then, that its doctrines are those of the great
prophet-patriarch, Abraham. The book gives an account of
the call of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees and his sojourn
and adventures in Egypt. The extracts from it here given
deal with the revelations of God to the patriarch concerning
the planetary system, pre-existence and nature of man, and the
creation of the earth by the Gods — for Abraham throughout
his account of creation uses the plural, "the Gods said let there
be light;" "the Gods said let us make man in our image," etc.,
etc., hence it is clear that the doctrine of the plurality of Gods
was plainly taught through this sacred scripture in the days of
Joseph Smith, for he translated it, and it was published by him
in the Times and Seasons while he was the editor of that jour-
nal. And now a few extracts from the book itself:

And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord
my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees; and I saw the
stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest
unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were
near unto it; and the Lord said unto me : These are the governing
ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto
me, for I am the Lord thy God: and I have set this one to govern all
those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou stsnd-
est. And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that
Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and
seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day
unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand
years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou stand-
est. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reck-
oning of Kolob.

* * » «

. said unto me: Now, Abraham, these two facts

THE "mormon*' doctrine OF DEITY. 219

exist, behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the

times of reckoning, and the set time, yea, the set time of the earth

upon which thou standest, and the set time of the greater light

which is set to rule the day, and the set time of the lesser light

which is set to rule the night. Now the set time of the lesser light

is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time

of the earth upon which thou standest. And where these two facts

exist, there shall be another fact above them, that ia, there shall be

another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; and

thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above

another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the

reckoning of the Lord's time, which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne

of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order

as that upon which thou standest. And it is given unto thee to

know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until

thou come near unto the throne of God. Thus I, Abraham, talked

with the Lord face to face, as one man taketh with another; and he

told me of the works which his hands had made: and he said unto

me: My son, my son, (and his hand was stretched out,) behold I will

show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw

those things which his hand had made, which were many; and they

multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.
* * * *

And it was in the night time when the Lord spake these words
unto me: I will multiply thee, and thy seed after thee, like unto
these; and if thou canst count the number of sands, so shall be the
number of thy seeds. And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show
these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare
all these words. If two things exist, and there be one above
the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob
is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam [stars] that thou hast seen, be-
cause it is nearest unto me. Now, if there be two things, one above
the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a
planet or star may exist above it; ♦ * ♦ as, also, if there be
two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet
these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the

220 THE ''mormon" doctrine of deity.

other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no
end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. And
the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two
spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there Bhall be an-
other more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more
intelligent than them all. * * * ♦ ♦

I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come
down unto thee to deliver unto thee the works which my hands have
made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the
heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence,
over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I
came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou
hast seen.

Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences
that were organized before the world was; and among all these there
were many of the noble and great ones; and God saw these souls that
they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said:
These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were
spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abra-
ham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said
unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space
there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an
earth whereupon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith,
to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall
command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added
upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory
in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and
they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their
heads for ever and ever. And the Lord said: Whom shall I send?
And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me.
And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord
said: I will send the first. And the second was angry, and kept
not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.
And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at
the beginning, and they, that is, the Gods, organized and formed the

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 221

heavens and the earth. And the earth, after it was formed, was
empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the
earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the
Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters. And
they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light. And
they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they
divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness. And
the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night,
And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called
night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and
this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day
and night. And the Gods also said: Let there be an expanse in the
midst of the waters, and it shall divide the waters from the waters.
And the Gods ordained the expanse, so that it divided the waters
which were under the expanse from the waters which were above
the expanse; and it was so, even as they ordained. (Pearl of Great
Price, pp. 60-67.)

And thus the account of creation proceeds throughout the
seven periods thereof, and it is always the Gods did this or that
until the whole work of creation was prepared for man.

THE GODHEAD ACCORDING TO THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS.

The book of Doctrine and Covenants in the main is a
collection of revelations given through the Prophet Joseph Smith.
It is not a formal treatise upon theology. This collection of
revelations assumes the existence of God, and only incidentally
treats of His being and attributes. And since the revelations
pertain to our earth, and its heavens, and our God, the singular
number is used in speaking of God; and yet in these revela-
tions the persons of the Godhead are spoken of as being
distinct from one another in the sense of being separate
and distinct individuals, as the following passages illustrate:

There is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from ever-

222 THE

lasting to everlasting, the 'same unchangable God, the framer of
heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; and that he
created man, male and female, after his own image and his own like-
ness, created he them and gave unto them commandments that they
should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he
should be the only being whom they should worship. But by the
transgression of these holy laws, man became sensual and develish,
and became fallen man. Wherefore the Almighty God gave his Only
Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been
given of him. He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them;
he was crucified, died, and rose again the third day; and ascended
into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign
with almighty power according to the will of the Father, that as
many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name, and endure
in faith to the end, should be saved; not only those who believed after
he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh, but all those from
the beginning, even as many as were before he came, who believed
in the words of the holy prophets, who spake as they were inspired
by the gift of the Holy Ghost, who truly testified of him in all things,
should have eternal life, as well as those who should come after,
who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost,
which beareth record of the Father, and of the Son; which Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without
end. Amen.*

So also in section ninety-three the distinction between
Father and Son and Holy Spirit is clearly made; and man declared
to be of the same race with God. Indeed one may say that the
supposed gulf of seperation is swept away; that on the one hand
the divinity of man is proclaimed, and on the other, the hu-
manity of God. That is, there is identity of race between Gods
and men; though man is now in a fallen state, working upward
towards God, through the plan of redemption in Christ Jesus:

* Doc. and.Cov. Sec. 20; 17-28.

THE '*M0RM0N" DOCTRINB OP DEITY. 223

Every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and
calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my command-
ments, shall see my face and know that I am, and that I am the true
light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and that I
am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one:
the Father because he gave me of his fullness, and the Son because I
was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the
sons of men. I was in the world and received of my Father, and the
works of him were plainly manifest; and John saw and bore record of
the fullness of my glory, and the fullness of John's record is hereafter
to be revealed: and he bore record, saying, I saw his glory that he
was in the beginning before the world was; therefore in the beginning
the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation
the light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who
came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him
was the life of men and the light of men. The worlds were made by
him; men were made by him: all things were made by- him, and through
him, and of him. And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory,
as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and
truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and
dwelt among us. And I, John, saw that he received not of the full-
ness at the first, but received grace for grace: and he received not of
the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he
received a fullness; and thus he was called the Son of God, because
he received not of the fullness at the first. And I, John, bear record,
and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon
him in the form of a dove, and sat upen him, and there came a voice
out of heaven saying. This is my beloved Son. And I, John, bear
record that he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; and he
received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of
the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. ♦ ♦ * And I give
unto you these sayings that ye may understand and know how to
worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the
Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fullness. * * *
And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the
Father, and am the first-torn. ♦ ♦ ♦ Ye were also in the be-

224 THB "mormon" doctrinb op deity.

ginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of
truth. ♦ ♦ ♦ Man was also in the beginning with God. In-
telligence, or the light of troth, was not created or made, neither
indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God
has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there
is no existence. Behold, here, is the agency of man, and here is
the condemnation of man, because that which was from the beginning
is plainly manifest onto them, and they receive not the light.
And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under con- •
demnation, for man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit
and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy; and
when seperated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements
are the tabernacle of God; yea man is the tabernacle of God, even
temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that
temple.*

Again:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's;
the Son also: but the Holy Ghost has not a body of fiesh and bones,
but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could
not dwell in us.f

Since then there is in these revelations a recognition of
the distinction between the persons of the Godhead, it is clear
that the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is recognized. It is
also incidentally recognized in other passages of the Doctrine
and Covenants. In section seventy-six, where a description is
given of the blessedness of those who believe and obey the
gospel, it is said:

They are they who are the church of the first bom. They are
th«.y Into whose hands the Father has given all things. They are they
who are Priests and Kings, who have received of his fullnesss, and of

* Uoe, and Gov, Sec. 93: 1-35.
- Ibid. Sec, 130: 22,

THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 225

his glory, and are Priests of the Most High, after the order of
Melchisedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the
order of the Only Begotten Son; wherefore, as it is writien, they
are Gods, even the sons of God — wherefore all things are theirs;
whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are
theirs and they are Christ's and Christ is God's,*

The revelation in which the above passage appears was first
published in the Evening and Morning Star, July, 1832. Again,
in a prayer and prophecy written by Joseph Smith while in
Liberty prison, March, 1839, in the course of describing the
power and glory and blessedness to be revealed in the dispensa-
tion of the Fullness of Times, the prophet declares that all
things shall be made known —

According to that which was ordained in the midst of the
Council of the Eternal God of all other Gods, before this world was. f

Again, in speaking of those who fall short of complete
obedience to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and
describing their limitations the Prophet says:

From henceforth they are not Gods, but are angels of God, for-
ever and ever.J

On the other hand he declares that all those who obey the
fullness of the gospel —

Shall pass by the angels, and the Gods, * * * to their
exaltation and glory in all things. * * * Then shall they he
Gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from ever-
lasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be
above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shaU

* Doc. and Gov. Sec. 76: 54-59.
tibid. Sec. 121:32.
t Ibid. Sec. 132: 17.

226 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

they be Gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject
unto them.*

Thus the revelations of God to the Church from the earliest
times, and now collected in the Doctrine and Covenants, teach
that men and Gods are identical in race, and that there is a plu-
rality of Gods.

the "mormon" doctrine op deity as set porth in the dis-
courses OP the prophet JOSEPH SMITH AND EARLY
church PUBLICATIONS.

From the King Follett Sermon^ April 7, 1844.t

It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself

in the beginning.

^ * -N- ^

There are but a very few beings in the world who understand
rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not
comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to

come, as respects their relationship to God.

* * * *

If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not
comprehend themselves.

* -M- * -M-

What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears
and hear, all ye ends of the earth. * * * God himself was once
as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder
heavens! That is the great secret. If the vail was rent today, and
the great God who holds this world in its orbit; and who upholds all
worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible — I
say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in
form — like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a
man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness

* Doc. and Gov. Sec. 132: 19, 20.

t Millennial Star, vol. xxiii, p. 245 et seq.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 227

of God, and received instructions from, and walked, talked, and con-
versed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.
* * * *

It is necessary we should understand the character and being of

God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God

came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was

God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and will take away

the vail, so that you may see. * * * It is the first principle of

the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know

that we may converse with him as one man converses with another,

and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the

Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself

did.

•if ^ -if •)(■

The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, "As the Father hath

power in himself, even so hath the Son power" — to do what? Why,

what the Father did. The answer is obvious — in a manner to lay

down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to

do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again.

Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the

Bible.*

* * -M- *

Here, then, is eternal life: to know the only wise and true God;
and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be
kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you —
namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small
capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to ex-
altation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are
able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those
who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

* The argument here made by the Prophet is very much
strengthened by the following passage: "The Son can do nothing of
himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever
he [the Father] doeth, these also the Son doeth likewise*' (St, John
5: 19).

228 THE "mormon'' doctrine op deity.

How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part
with a husband, wife, father, mother, child or dear relative, to know
that although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they
shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings, in immortal glory,
not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of
God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? [i. e., to be
joint heirs with Jesus Christ]. To inherit the same power, the same
glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a
God and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who
have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw
my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father
worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the
same; and when I get my kingdom,! shall present it to my Father, so
that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in
glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place,
and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the
tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus
glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children.
It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first
principles of the gospel, about which so much has been said.

•M- * -M- *

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and

ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the

principles of the gospel — you must begin with the first, and go on

until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it wiU be a great

while after you have passed through the vail before you vsUl have

learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world: it vriU

be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation, even beyond

the grave,

* * * *

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I
will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of
the creation in the Bible. Berosheit: I want to analyze the word.
Baith — in, by, through, etc. Rosh — the head. Sheit — grammatical
termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the
baith there. A Jew, without any authority, added the word: he

THE ''mormon/* doctrine OP DEITY. 229

thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head ! It read at first,

"The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true

meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do

not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. * * *

Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.

* ♦ ♦ The head God called together the Gods, and sat in grand

council to bring forth the world. The grand Councilors sat at the

head in yonder heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds

which were created at that time. * * * In the beginning, the

head of the Gods called a council of the Gods, and they came together

and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.
♦ ♦ * ♦

from the Discourse of June 16, 1844.*

The Prophet's text was: '*And hath made us kings and
priests unto God and his Father: to him be glory and dominion
forever and ever. Amen." (Revelation of St. John 1: 6.)

It is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that
of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and aposta-
tized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they
declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods; and, lo and
behold ! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry — "The
Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has
fallen."

•N- -X- -N- -N-

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text
for the express purpose. I wish to declare I have always, and in all
congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it
has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders
fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct person-
age, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the
Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a
spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three

* MiU, Star Vol. 24, p. 108, et seq.

230 THE **MORMON** DOCTRINE OP DEITY.

Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and be-
hold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can
contradict it? The text says — "And hath made us kings and priests
unto God and his Father" The Apostles have discovered that there
were Gods above, for Paul says God was the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ My object was to preach the Scriptures, and preach
the doctrine they contain, there being a God above the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ I am bold to declare. I have taught all the strong
doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than
in private. John was one of the men, and the Apostles declare they
were made kings and priests unto God the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. It reads just so in the Revelations. Hence, the doctrine of
a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doc-
trine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the
power of controversy. **A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not

err therein.''

* * ^ *

Paul says there are Gods many, and Lords many, * *
but to us there is but one God — that is, pertaining to us; and he is in
all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many,
and Lords many, they cry: — "Away with him ! Crucify him, crucify
him!" ♦ ♦ * paui^ if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer, you
are. I say there are Gods many, and Lords many, but to us only
one; and we are to be in subjection to that one. ♦ ♦ ♦

Some say I do not interpret the Scriptures the same as they do.
They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods
many, and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite
of the whims of all men. You know, and I testify, that Paul had
no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God. ♦ ♦ «
I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had
no allusion to the heathen gods in the text.

I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the
first word shows [the existence of] a plurality of Gods. ♦ * ♦
Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by
King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth." I want to analyze the [word Berosheit: Rosh, the

fas "MORMON^' DOCtRlNE OP DEITY. 231

head; Sheit, a grammatical termination. The Baith was not origin-
ally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since
. added by a Jaw. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from
the word, Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word
heim, it renders it Gods. It read first — "In the beginning the head
of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated
it — "The head of the Gods called the Gods together."

« -N- -N- -N-

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. * * *

In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and

the earth. * * * * If we pursue the

Hebrew text further it reads Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aiishama-

yeen vehau auraits. — "The head one of the Gods said. Let us make

man in our own image." I once asked a learned Jew if the Hebrew

language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural,

why not render the first, Eloheim, plural? He replied, That is the rule

with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible. He

acknowledged I was right.

* * * *

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of
Gods beyond the power of refutation. * * *

The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through —
Gods. The head of the ,Gods appointed one God for us; and when
yoa take a [this] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the
beauty, holiness, and perfection of all the Gods.

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God, three in
one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray
not for the world; but I pray for them which thou hast given me.
* * * * I want to read the text to you myself —

"Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast
given me, that they may be one, as we are." I am agreed with the
Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one.
The Greek shows that it should be agreed.

"Father, I pray for them which thou hast given me out of the
world, and not for these alone, but for them also which shall believe

232 THE ^'mormon** doctrinb op deity.

on me through their word, that they maj all be agreed, as thou,
Father, art agreed with me, and I with thee, that they also may be
agreed with us,-' and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory
and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we
are seen, and be as our God, and he is as his Father.

•N- -N- -N- -N-

I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by trans-
lating the [Egyptian] papyrus which is now in my house. I learned
a testimony concerning Abraham, and he^reasoned concerning the
God of heaven. "In order to do that,'' said he, " suppose we have
two facts: that supposes another fact may exist — two men on the
earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another
who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one
above another, so that there is no end to them.'' If Abraham rea-
soned thus — If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered
that God, the Father of Jesus Christ, had a Father, you may suppose
that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a
father? And where was there ever a father without first being a
son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without
a progenitor? And everything comes in this way: Paul says that
which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly. Hence,
if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that he [that Father] had
a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such
doctrine, for the Bible is full of it. * * * Jesus said
that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as his Father had
done before him. As the Father had done before, he laid down his
life, and took it up the same as his Father had done before [him].

■M- * * *

They found fault with Jesus Christ because he said he was the
Son of God, and made himself equal with God. * * *

What did Jesus say, "Is it not written in your law, I said. Ye are
Gods? If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came,
and the Scriptures cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the Father
has sanctified and sent into the world. Thou blasphemest, because I
said I am the Son of God?" It was through him that they drank of
the spiritual rock. * * * ♦ jesus, if

THE •'mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 233

they were called Gods unto whom the word of God came, why should

it be thought blasphemy that I should say I am the Son of God?
* * * *

They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead are ex-
alted far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions, and angels,
and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint heirs with
Jesus Christ, all having eternal power. The Scriptures are a mix-
ture of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are
blindly led by the blind. I will refer to another Scripture. "Now,"
says God, when he visited Moses in the bush, * * *

**Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel." God said: "Thou
shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." I be-
lieve those Gods that God reveals as Gods, to be sons of God, and all
can cry Abba, Father! Sons of God who exalt themselves to be
Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only
Gods I have a reverence for. John said he was a king. "And from
Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of
the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that
loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath
made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory
and dominion forever and ever* Amen." thou God who art King
of kings and Lord of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, de-
clare — "We cannot believe thee."

234 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

USE OF THE WORD ELOHIM.*

BY PROFESSOR W. H. CHAMBERLIN, OP THE BRIGHAM YOUNG
COLLEGE, LOGAN, UTAH.

Two words. El of which Elim was the plural form, and
Eloah, of which Ebhim was the plural, were applied generally
to Deity by the Hebrew people. All these forms are found in
the other Semitic languages, and are, therefore, very ancient
in origin.

Under severest discipline the people of Israel were educated
in the school of monotheism, in order that God's nature might
be revealed to man, and in order that unity might be introduced
into the moral life of man. Under this discipline, the people
of Israel must have learned to apply the plural form Mohim,
which their fathers had used of Deit>, in speaking of the one
God whom they had been taught to serve.

The Hebrew language would allow them to do this, for a
few nouns, when used by them in the plural, seemed to magnify
the original idea. In such cases the plural form was treated
grammatically as singular. An example may be found in Job
40: 15, where the plural form behemoth is used to intensify
the image of the animal there being described, as is shown by

* During the progress of the discussion between the Rev. C. Van
Der Donckt and myself, as published in the Improvement Era, Pro-
fessor William H. Chamberlin of the Brigham Young College,
Logan, Utah, contributed the following brief though valuable paper
on the use of the word "Elohim" in the Bible, which by his kind
consent I am permitted to publish here.

THE "mormon'* doctrine OP DEITY. 235

context. In the same verse, the behemoth is referred to by
the singular pronoun he..

But the use of Elohim, in this senae, by the later writers
of Israel, is not necessarily opposed to the view that in the
earliest documents or writings which the Hebrews possessed,
it was applied to a plurality of Gods.

The objection to this view has been made that, with the
plural forij lohim, in Gen, 1, the singular verb ia used. Such
a use of a singular predicate with a plural subject is, however,
comm »n in Hebrew. On page 111 of Harper* s Hebrew Syntax
we find the following rule covering the case, viz : "When the
predicate precedes the subject it may agree with the subject
in number or it mav assume the primary form, viz.: third mas-
culinn singular, whatever be the number of the following sub-
ject." So the plural form Elohim after a singular verb, the
construction found in Gen. i, and elsewhere, is no proof that it
is singular in any sense. Similar constructions are found with
other wordrt in Gen. i: 14, where the sir gnlar of the verb hnya,
be, is followed by the plural noun meoroth, lights; in Gen. 41:
50, where the singular verb yalhdK was born, is foUo * ed by
the plural noun sheney banim, two sons; in Job 42: 15, wh» re
the singular verb nimisa, was found, is followed by the plural
noun nashim, women. Many similar examples might be given
to illustrate the rule.

That hlohim was used in the plural sense in Gen. 1, is shown
in the 26th verse, where the Elohim in referring to themselves
use the plural suffix, nu, our, twice; and they also use the
plural form of the verb naaseh, let us make. Also in Gen. 11:
7, where nerdhak, let us descend, and nahhlah, W us confuse,
two verbs in the plural form, proceed from the mouth of God.
In Gen 3: 5. the plural construct participle, yodhe. knowers of,
modifies the noun, Elohim, which therefore is also plural. It is
just possible that this participle is predicated of the subject

236 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

you, but the participle would then follow the finite verb, giving
a very unusual construction for the early Hebrew writers.
One such construction is, however, found in Gen. 4: 17, **he
became (one) building a city."

The thought of the possibility of God's having with him
great associates was alive even to the time of Isaiah, as is
shown in Isaiah 6: 8, where Jehovah said, "Whom shall I send,
and who will go for usV^ Jehovah was a personal name applied
to the Being who guided Israel, and afterwards lived on the
earth as Jesus Christ. (Ill Nephi, 15: 5, Doc. and Gov. sec.
110.) Probably, few of the Jews were ever able to distinguish
Jehovah from Elohim, as it was latterly used, i. e., in the sin-
gular sense, and so when late writers wrote down the portion
of Genesis where the name of Jehovah began to be used, they
placed next to it, for the same purpose for which we now place
the marginal reading, the word Elohim. So we have in Gen.
2: 4; 3: 24, and in some other places, the expression Jehovah
Elohim, translated the Lord God. The words were put together
late in Israel's history wien Elohim had come to be used in the
singular; Jehovah Elohim meant Jehovah, i. e., God. Later the
explanatory use of the word Elohim was forgotten, and the two
words combined to apply to God. (See page 219 of Brown's
Hebrew Lexicon, the most authoritative lexicon in English, for
the above explanation.)

The use of the singular noun Iloah is almost confined to
poetry. It is used in Psalm 18 and in Deut. 32. There is
ground for saying that the Savior on the cross in crying out
to his Father, used the singular form Eloah. In combining
Eloah with the suffix i, meaning my, and expressing the result
in Greek the h would be dropped, for there is no letter h in the
Greek alphabet. A, which was merely introduced to assist the
Hebrew to pronounce the h, would also be dropped. The result

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 237

would give us EMy the form given in the basic gospel, in Mark
15: 34. (See also Judges 5: 5, of the Septuagint).

In the year 1830, we find Joseph Smith, in the face of the
tradition of the whole world, daring to render the word Elohim
in Gen i, et seq., in the plural. It is one great evidence of the
divinity of the Church of Jesus Christ restored in these last
days that its prophet said many things, in the day in which he
lived, that a progressive people are beginning to appreciate as
true; and so we find learned men sympathizing with the daring
position taken above. With reference to Gen. 1: 26, and simi-
lar passages, we find as one explanation in the lexicon men-
tioned above, a lexicon based on the work of Gesenius, the
great German Hebrew scholar, that God was in consultation
with angels. Now, since the term **angel," a term used loosely
by the scholars, is made there to mean and refer to superhuman
beings sufficiently advanced in intelligence to be included in a
consultation with God, we have our prophet's explanation ex-
actly. In conclusion I shall quote the words of the great
Biblical scholar, the Rev. A. B. Davidson of Edinburgh, in ex-
planation of the same: "The use of *us* by the divine speaker
(Gen. 1: 26, 3: 22, 11: 17) is strange, but is perhaps due to
his consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a
loftier order than men (Is. 5: 8). (See Easting's Dictionary
oj the Bible, page 205.)

238 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD.*

BY ELDER WILLIAM HENRY WHITTALL.

In compariDg the ideas of others with our own upon any
subject, with a view of coming to a clear understanding and
just conclusion on the points discussed, it is both important and
necessary that a clear definition of terms be given and received.
Most of the disputes which arise in all classes of society, relig-
ious and secular, would be avoided to a great extent, if the dis-
putants clearly understood and attended to each other's terms,
and clea*r]y defined their own.

Words are frequently used in such different sense — some-
times primary, and sometimes secondary — sometimes literal, and
sometimes figurative, that a misconception is often likely to
arise, which might be easily prevented, were a plain definition
of terms given at the outset. Opposite parties are too apt to
place their own constructions on each other's expressions.

** Omnipresence'' 2k% all will admit me^ns presence everywhere.

Now, strictly speaking, matter, in its most extensive and
comprehensive sense, is the only thing that can be said to be
literally everywhere. There are various kinds and degrees of
matter; but matter as a whole, and in a general sense, is the
only thing that we can conceive of as being everywhere pres-
ent, and nowhere absent.

One reservation, however, must here be made, for the
sake of scientific accuracy, -namely, that wherever matter ex-

Millennial Star Vol. xxiii No. 19, p. 292.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 289

iets and moves, there is of necessity a corresponding or pro-
portionate extent of space wherein to move.

There is no such thing, however, in all the creations of
God, as what is called empty space.

But this fact does not in the least affect our argument;
for the motion of matter is merely the displacement of one
thing by another — one particle occupying the space which had
been previously occupied by another. Thus, if I thrust my
hand into a mass of sand, I do not penetrate the grains of sand,
(although I do penetrate the sand as a mass,) the hand merely
going between, or making its way by displacing the grains with
which it comes in contact. No particle of matter can occupy
the same identical space as another at the same time; conse-
quently, no portion of matter can in an exclusive and strictly
literal sense be omnipresent.

The nearest approach to a literal omnipresence, that we
can conceive of, is that of the particles of one kind and degree
of matter commingling with those of another.

The following may serve as a simple illustration: In a
homely cup of tea, we find the particles of the tea itself inti-
mately mingling with those of the water; those of the sugar
mingling with those of the other two elements; and then, again,
there are the particles of caloric or heat everywhere present
throughout the whole. Yet no one particle of either water,
(itself a compound of gases), or tea, or sugar, or cream,
can occupy the same space as any other particle. This
simple illustration, however homely and commonplace, may
serve as an example, on a small scale, of the nearest idea that
can be formed of a literal omnipresence, or presence everywhere.
The plainer the simile, the better for ease and clearness of
thought.

We have now to define what we mean by the term "God."

This word, like many others, is frequently used to repre-

240 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

sent different ideas. We sometimes employ it in reference to
Deity as a person. One of the old prophets saw God sitting on
a throne. Of course, then, according to this personal sense of
the word, God could not have been everywhere present; for he
was on a throne. We often read of God as sitting down, stand-
ing up, walking about, &c. Now, a person, when sitting down,
dose not occupy the same space as when standing up. He al-
ways occupies the same amount of space, but no more, what-
ever posture he may place himself in, or however much he may
change his relative positions by moving hither and thither.

Hence it is utterly impossible for God to be personally om-
nipresent.

But we sometimes speak of God in reference to his attri-
butes of love, wisdom, goodness, influence, power, authority, &c.

The next question, then, is. Can he be said to be omnipres-
ent in these respects?

Yes, undoubtedly so; but not literallp.

As these are all abstact terms, it is evident that they can-
not be used in a strictly literal sense. Love, power, goodness,
wisdom, &c., are not things which occupy space. We cannot
measure knowledge by the yard, wisdom by the pint, influenct
by the inch, or power by the gallon. We cannot speak of auth-
ority as occupying so many square or cubic feet of space, or
desbribe the height, depth, length, or width of intelligence or
faith. These are all abstract terms; and in describing the ex-
tent of any attribute of God or man, we are bound to speak fig-
uratively. We thus speak of "infinite power," of "boundless
love," of "illimitable wisdom," of "unbounded influence," of "un-
limited authority," of "infinite goodness," &c. If we examine
such expressions closely, we cannot but see that they are used
in a relative and figurative sense, and not in a strictly literal
one. We cannot find room for all these things everywhere. If
one thing occupied all space literally, we certainly could not lo-

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 241

cate half a dozen everywhere! The absurdity of the thing only
proves the fallacy of the idea of literal ubiquity in reference to
any attribute, the terms, expressive of which cannot be literal-
ized.

But again: We often speak of God in reference to his
agents. For example, the Apostle Paul says, ' 'No man taketh
this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was
Aaron." Moses, who called and ordained Aaron, was God's agent.
All the servants of the Lord are called by his agents acting in
his name and by his authority. When a man is called and or-
dained to certain functions of the Priesthood, we say that God
called him, and that he is a servant of God. Thus, in a relative
sense, God may be and is said to be present where he is person-
ally absent, just as her Majesty the Queen may be said to be
present throughout all her dominions by her official and repre-
sentative agents. She is not literally, but virtually or officially,
representatively or vicariously present wherever her regal auth-
ority is swayed. It is not actually she who is present, but her
agents or authorities, who. act in her name in her various prin-
cipalities and colonies.

Again: We often use the term "God" in reference to his
Spirit, whereby he is said to be omnipresent.

But we also frequently use the term "Spirit" in more sense
than one. Sometimes we speak of the Holy Spirit or Holy
Ghost as a person. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are
three distinct persons, —the first two being personages of tab-
ernacle, and the last a personage of spirit. In this sense the
Spirit can be no more spatially extended, and no more omnipres-
ent, than the Father or the Son. If, indeed, either of the
three could be personally and substantially present everywhere
— that is, filling all space, it would puzzle the astutest intellect
to conceive where the other two could be located!

The spirit of God, then, or the Holy Ghost, as a personage,

242 THE "mormon" doctrine op]^deity.

cannot be literally omnipresent, although we may (as we often
do) speak of him as being present here and there by his in-
fluence, authority, and power.

But we also frequently speak of the Spirit of God as a di-
vine substance or influence, of power diffused throughout the
spiritual and physical universe, giving vitality, activity, and
force to the various things around us, according to Qertain
spiritual and natural laws.

It is, indeed, the inherent life and soul of all things — the
inner and eternal principle of life and being. Whether we
speak of "Nature" or of the "God of nature," we mean the
same thing, unless, by way of distinction, we connect with the
latter expression the idea of personality. In the former sense,
God is everywhere.

President Young, upon this subject, says — "It is the Deitj
within us that causes increase. * * * He is in every
person upon the face of the earth. The elements that every
individual is made of and lives in possess the Godhead * *
The Deity within us is the great principle that causes us to in-
crease and to grow in grace and truth."

It will thus be evident that God is, by his Spirit, in this
sense, omnipresent. Indeed, we arrive at the conclusion that
God (although local in personality) may be said, in various ways
and in different senses of the word, to be everywhere present.
President Young says— "He is omnipotent, and fills immensity by
his agents, by his influence, by his Spirit, and by his ministers."
So that, go wheresoever we may, God is there, in some way or
other. If we ascend to the heavens above, he is there; if we
make the grave our bed, he is there; if we fly to any part of the
earth or sea, he is there, and his providence will protect the
just.

CHAPTER VI.

THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH'S VIEWS IN RELATION TO MAN
AND THE PRIESTHOOD.

As in the "Mormon" doctrine of Deity discussed in these
pages, man is an important factor, and as his relations to God,
and the possibilities that are open to him in the never-ending
future are a part of the discussion between the Reverend Mr.
Van Der Donckt and myself, the following remarks of the
Prophet respecting man and his relations to God, and the rela-
tionship of certain leading men to each other, in the several
dispensatiors of the Gospel which have been given, cannot fail
to be an interesting and instructive contribution to this chapter.
The remarks under division I are taken from a discourse by the
Prophet delivered in June, 1839, in answer to some inquiries
concerning Priesthood. The Prophet's remarks under division
I appear in the Millennial Star, vol. xvii, pages 310, 311.
Those in division II are from an article on Priesthood prepared
by the Prophet, and read by Robert B. Thompson at the general
conference of the Church held at Nauvoo, October 5, 1«40, and
are to be found in the Millennial Star, vol xviii, pages 164, 165:

I.

The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First
Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation.
He obtained it in the creation, before the worlds were formed, as in
Genesis. 1: 20, 26, 28. He had dominion given him over every living

244 THE "mormon'' doctrine op deity.

creature. He is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures.
Then to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam
in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the
Father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion.
These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God
from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end
of years. The keys have to be brought from, heaven whenever the
Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven it is by Adam's
authority. Daniel 7, speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the
oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children to-
gether and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming
of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family
and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the
keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take
place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man
stands before him, and there is given Him glory and dominion. Adam
delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him
as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head
of the human family.

The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity,
and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and
earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from
eternity. Our Savior speaks of children and says, their angels always
stand before my Father. The Father called all spirits before him at
the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head,
and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by
him to others. He will have to givt an account of his stewardship
and they to him.

The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, and Elias,
gave the keys to Peter, James, and John, on the mount, when He was
transfigured before them. The Priesthood is everlasting — without
beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If
there is no change of ordinance, there is no change of Priesthood.
Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the
Priesthood.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 245

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came
down, in regular r, James, and John had it given

to them, and they gave it to others. Christ is the great High Priest:
Adam next. Paul speaks of the Church coming to an innumerable
company of angels— to God, the Judge of all — the spirits of just
men made perfect; to Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, etc.
(Heb. 3: 23).

I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. He called to-
gether his children and blessed them with a patriarchal blessing.
The Lord appeared in their midst, and he (Adam) blessed them all,
and foretold what should befall them to the latest generation. (See
Doc. and Co v., sec. cvii: 53, 56.)

This is why Abraham blessed his posterity; he wanted to bring
them into the presence of God. They looked for a city, etc. Moses
sought to bring the children of Israel into the presence of God,
through the power of the Priesthood, but he could not. In the first
ages of the world they tried to establish the same thing; and there
were Eliases raised up who tried to restore these very glories, but did
not obtain them, but they prophesied of a day when this glory would
be revealed. Paul spoke of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times*
when God would gather together all things in one, etc,; and those men
to whom these keys have been given, will have to be there, and they
without us cannot be made perfect.

These men are in heaven, but their children are on earth. Their
bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason (Matt.
13: 41). And the Son of Man shall send forth his angels, etc. All
these authoritative characters will come down and join hand in hand
in bringing about this work.

n.

In order to investigate the subject of the Priesthood, so impor-
tant to this as well as every succeeding generation, I shall proceed to
trace the subject, as far as I possibly can, from the Old and New
Testaments.

There are two Priesthoods spoken of in the Scripture, viz., the
Melchisedek and the Aaronic or Levitical. Although there are two

246 THE **mormon" doctrine of deity.

Priesthoods, yet the Melchisedek Priesthood comprehends the Aaronic
or Levitical Priesthood, and is the grand head, and holds the hi^^hest
authority which pertains to the Priesthood, and the keys of the King-
dom of God in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the
earth, and is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the
plan of salvation, and every important matter is revealed from
heaven.

Its institution was prior to the "foundations of this earth, or the
morning stars sang together, or the sons of God shouted for joy," and
is the highest and holiest Priesthood, and is after the order of the
Son of God, and all other Priesthoods are only parts, ramifications,
powers, and blessings belonging to the same, and are held, controlled,
and directed by it. It is the channel through which the Almighty
commenced revealing his glory at the beginning of the creation of
this earth, and through which he has continued to reveal himself to
the children of men to the present time, and through which he will
make known his purposes to the end of time.

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken
of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days/' or, in other words, the
first and oldest of all, the great grand progenitor, of whom it is said
in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of
all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings,
to whom was made knovvn the plan of ordinances for the salvation
of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed,
and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will
continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of
the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, i. e„ the dispensation of all
the times, have been and will be revealed through him from the be-
ginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations
that are to be revealed: Ephesians, 1st chap., 9th and 10th verses —
"Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to
his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dis-
pensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one
all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth,
even in him.''

Now the purpose in himself in the winding-up scene of the last

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 247

dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should
be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensa-
tions.

And again: God purposed in himself, that there should not be
eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gath-
ered together in one, and that all things whatsorer that should be
gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness
and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore he set the or-
dinances to be the same for ever, and set Adam to watch over them,
to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them:
Hebrews 1: 14 — "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to
minsiter to those who shall be heirs of salvation?"

These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who
acts under the direction of the Lord. From the above quotation we
learn that Paul perfectly understood the purposes of God in relation
to his connection with man, and that glorious and perfect order which
he established in himself, whereby he sent forth power, revelations,
and glory.

God will not acknowledge that which he has not called, ordained,
and chosen. In the beginning God called Adam by his own voice.
See Genesis 3rd chap., 9th and 10th verses — "And the Lord called unto
Adam, and said unto him. Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy
voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, and hid
myself." Adam received commandments and instruction from God;
this was the order from the beginning.

That he received revelations, commandments and ordinances at
the beginning is beyond the power of controversy; else, how did they
begin to offer sacrifices to God in an acceptable manner? And if they
offered sacrifices they must be authorized by ordination. We read in
Gen. 4th chap., 4th v., that Abel brought of the firstlings of the flock
and the fat thereof, and the Lord had respect to Abel and to his of-
fering. And again: Hebrews 11:4 — "By faith Abel offered unto
God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained wit-
ness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he
being dead, yet speaketh." How doth he yet speak? Why, he mag-
nified the Priesthood which was conferred upon him, and died a right-

248 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

eous man, and therefore has become an angel of God by receiving his
body from the dead, holding still the keys of his dispensation; and
was sent down from heaven unto Paul to minister consoling words,
and to commit unto him a knowledge of the mysteries of Godli-
ness.

And if this was not the case, I would ask, how did Paul know so
much about Abel, and why should he talk about his speaking after he
was dead? Hence, that he spoke after he was dead must be by being
sent down out of heaven to administer.

This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding
the presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the presi-
dency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his presidency and
authority from the Lord, but cannot receive a fullness until Christ
shall present the Kingdom to the Father, which shall be at the end of
the last dispensation.

THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 249

OF ADAM AND HIS RELATION TO THE INHABITANTS
OP THE EARTH.

(From the Doctrine and Covenants.)

In March, 1832, the Lord gave a revelation to the Church
commanding them to effect an organization for the betterment
of their material condition, that the poor might be better cared
for, and all the Saints be more equal in the possession of earthly
things, and then adds:

That you may come up to the crown prepared for you, and be
made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One
of Zion, who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman;
who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and
set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under
the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning
of days or end of life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye are little
children, and ye have not as yet understood how great blessings the
Father hath in his own hands and prepared for you ; and ye cannot
bear all things now; nevertheless, be of good cheer, for I will lead
you along; the kingdom is yours, and the blessings thereof are yours,
and the riches of eternity are yours (Doc. and Gov., sec. 78: 15-18).

Who the "Michael" here spoken of is, who is "appointed"
our "prince," and unto whom the "keys of salvation are given
under the counsel and direction of the Holy One," is made very
plain afterwards in a revelation given March 28, 1835, from
which I quote the following:

Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos,
Gainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methusaleh, who were all high

16

250 t&E ''mormon^ DOOTttlNlfe Of DfiltY.

priests, with the residue of his'posterity who were righteous, unto the
valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last
blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and
blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the Archangel.
And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam,and said unto him, I
have set thee to be at the head — a multitude of nations shall come of
thee, and thou art a prince over them for ever. And Adam stood up in
the midst of the congregation, and notwithstanding he was bowed
down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever
should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. These things
were all written in the Book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in
due time (Doc. and Gov., sec. 107: 53-57).

From this it will appear that the Prophet Joseph Smith
understood that Adam would stand at the head of his posterity
in this earth; that he would be their Prince and hold the keys
of salvation "under the counsel and direction of the Holy One,
who is without beginning of days or end of life." Doubtless it
was this which led the Prophet to say — ^after referring to the
fact that the Lord said to Moses, ^'Thou shalt be a god unto
the children of Israel," and again, '^Thou shalt be a god unto
Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman" — it was these consider-
ations, I repeat, which led the Prophet to say, "I believe those
Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can
cry, *Abba, Father!' sons of God, who exalted themselves to be
Gods even before the foundation of the world, and are the only
Gods I have a reverence for" (Discourse of June 16, 1844, Mil-
lennial Star, vol. xxiv, p. 140).

THE "mormon'' doctrine OF DEITY. 261

THE UVING GOD. *

(From the Times and Seasons.)

There is no subject among men, that engrosses so much time and
attention, and, at the same time, is so little understood, as the being,
knowledge, substance, attributes, and disposition of the living God.
In the first place. Christians and believers in Christianity, with a few
exceptions, believe in one God; or, perhaps we should say, in their
own language, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one God.
But to be obedient unto the truth, we will not thus transgress upon
reason, sense and revelation. It will then be necessary to treat the
subject of the "Living God," in contradiction to a dead God, or, one
that has "no body, parts or passions,'' and, perhaps it may be well
enough to say at the outset, that "Mormonism" embraces a plurality
of Gods, as the apostle said, there were "Gods many and Lords
many.'' In doing which, we shall not deny the scripture that has
been set apart for this world, and allow one God, even Jesus Christ,
the very eternal Father of this earth; and, if Paul tells the truth —
"by him the worlds were made."

It was probably alluded to by Moses, when the children of Israel
were working out their salvation, with fear and trembling, in the
wilderness, at the time that he spake these words: (Deut. 6: 23-26.)
"And it came to pass when ye heard the voice out of the midst of
the darkness (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near
unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders. And ye
said; Behold, the Lord our God hath showed us his glory, and great-
ness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire; we

* The article under this title, is an editorial in the "Times and
Seasons," published at Nauvoo, Feb. 15, 1845, presumably written by
the late President John Taylor, who, at the time it was written, was
both editor and proprietor of the ^'Times and Seasons."

252 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now,

therefore, why should we die? For this great fire will consume us.

If we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die.

For who is there of all flesh, that had heard the voice of the living

God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?"
* * * *

The first line of Genesis, purely translated from the orig-
inal, excluding the first Baith (which was added by the Jews,)
would read: — Roskeit (the head) baurau, (brought forth,) Elokeim
(the Gods) ate (with) hah'Shau-mahyiem (the heavens) veh-ate, (and
with) hauaurates, (the earth.) In simple English, the Head brought
forth the Gods, with the heavens and with the earth. The "Head"
must have meant the **living God," or Head God; Christ is our head.
The term "Eloheim," plural of Elohah. or ale, is used alike in the first
chapter of Genesis, for the creation, and the quotation of Satan. In
the second chapter, and fourth verse, we have this remarkable his-
tory: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when
they were brought forth; in the day that the Lord of the Gods made earth
and heavens" The Hebrew reads so.

Truly Jesus Christ created the worlds, and is Lord of Lords, and,
as the Psalmist said: "Judges among the Gods." Then Moses might
have said with propriety, he is the "living God," and, Christ, speak-
ing of the flesh could say: I am the Son of man; and, Peter, enlight-
ened by the Holy Ghost: Thou art the Son of the Living God, mean-
ing our Father in heaven, who is the Father of all spirits, and who,
with Jesus Christ, his first begotten son and the Holy Ghost, are one
in power, one in dominion, and one in glory, constituting the first
presidency of this system, and this eternity. But they are as much
three distinct persons as the sun, moon, and earth are three different
bodies.

Again, the "twelve kingdoms," which are under the above men-
tioned presidency of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are governed
by the same rules, and destined to the same honor; (Book Doc. & Gov.
p. 135, sec. 13.) For "Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a
man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field, to
dig in the field; and he said unto the first, go ye and labor in the field,

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 253

and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy
of my countenance; and he said unto the second, go ye also into the
field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my coun-
tenance; and also unto the third, saying, I will visit you: and unto
the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth."

Without going into the full investigation of the history and excel-
lency of God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in this article, let
us reflect that Jesus Christ, as Lord of Lords, and King of Kings,
must have a noble race in the heavens, or upon the earth, or else he
can never be as great in power, dominion, might, and authority, as
the scriptures declare. But hear; the mystery is solved. John
says (Rev. 14: 1,) "And 1 looked, and lo, a Lamb stood on the
mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, hav-
ing his Father's name written in their foreheads."

Their Father's name, bless me! that is GOD! Well done for
Mormonism; one hundred and forty-four thousand Gods, among the
tribes of Israel, and, two living Gods and the Holy Ghost, for
this world ! Such knowledge is too wonderful for men, unless they
possess the spirit of Gods. It unravels the little mysteries, which,
like a fog, hides the serene atmosphere of heaven, and looks from
world to world; from system to system; from universe to universe,
and from eternity to eternity, where, in each and all, there is a pres-
idency of Gods, and Gods many, and Lords many; and, from time to
time, or from eternity to eternity, Jesus Christ shall bring in another
world, regulated and saved as this will be, when he delivers it up to
the Father; and God becomes aU in all, "And,'' as John the Revelator
says (22: 3, 4): "there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God
and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him, and
they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads."

"His name in their foreheads," undoubtedly means "God" on the
front of their crowns; for, when all things are created new, in the
celestial kingdom, the servants of God, the innumerable multitude
are crowned, and, are perfect men and women in the Lord, one in
glory, one in knowledge, and one in image; they are like Christ, and
he is like God; then, 0, then, they are all "Living Gods," having
passed from death unto life, and possess the power of eternal lives!

2S4 TPJ: "mormon" pqctrjne op deity.

MATERIALITY.*
{From the ''Prophets)

God, the Father, is material.

Jesus Christ is material.

Angels are material.

Spirits are material.

Men are material.

The universe is material.

Space is full of materiality.

Nothing exists which is not material.

The elementary principles of the material universe are eternal;
they never originated from nonentity, and they never can be
annihilated.

Immateriality is but another name for nonentity — it is the neg-
ative of all things, and beings — of all existence.

There is not one particle of proof to be advanced to establish
its existence. It has no way to manifest itself to any intelligence
in heaven or on earth. Neither God, angels nor men, could positively
conceive of such a substance, being or thing. It possseses no prop-
erty or power by which to make itself manifest, to any intelligent
being in the universe, reason and analogy never scan it, or even
conceive of it. Revelation never reveals it, nor do any of our senses
witness its existence. It cannot be seen, heard, tasted, or smelled^
even by the strongest organs, or of the most acute sensibilities.

* This article on the nature of God, man, and angels appears in
the editorial columns of the "Prophet" for May 24, 1845. The *Trophet"
was published in New York and Boston, and at the time of the appear-
ance of this article Elder Parley P. Pratt was the editor, and hence
it was doubtless written by him.

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 255

It is neither liquid or solid, soft or hard, — it can neither extend
nor contract. In short, it can exert no influence whatever — it can
neither act, nor he acted upon. And even if it does exist, it is of
no possible use. It possesses no one desirable property, faculty or
use, ytt, strange to say, ''Immateriality" is the modem Christian's
God, his anticipated heaven, his immortal self — hisall.

sectarianism! atheism! ! annihilation! ! ! Who can per-
ceive the nice shades of difference between the one and the other?
They seem alike all but in name. The atheist has no God.

The sectarian has a God without body or parts. Who can define
the difference? for our part we do not perceive a difference of a single
hair; they both claim to be the negative of all things which exist —
and both are equally powerless and unknown.

The atheist has no after life, or conscious existence beyond the
grave.

The sectarian has one, but it is immaterial like his God; and
without body or parts. Here again both are negative, and both are
at the same point. Their faith and hope amount to the same, only
they are expressed by different terms.

Again, the atheist has no heaven in eternity.

The sectarian has one, but it is immaterial in all its proprieties,
and is therefore the negative of all riches in substance. Here agaii
they are equal, and arrive at the same point.

As we do not envy them the possession of all they claim, we will
now leave them in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the same
and proceed to examine the portion still left for the ''poor Mormons"
to enjoy.

What is God? He is a material intelligence, possessing
both body and parts. He is in the form of man, and is in fact of the
same species; and is a model, or standard of perfection to which
man is destined to attain: he being the great Father, and head of the
whole family.

He can go, come, converse, reason, eat, drink, love, hate, rejoice^
possesss and enjoy. He can also travel space with all the ease and
intelligence necessary, for moving from planet to planet, and from
system to system.

256 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

This being cannot occupy two distinct places at once. There-
fore, he cannot be (in person) everywhere present. For evidence and
illustration of this God, and his personal powers, and attributes,
we refer to the scriptures of the Old and New Testament which
speak substantially of his body, parts, passions, powers, and of
his conversing, walking, eating, drinking, etc.; for instance, his taking"
dinner with Abraham.

What is Jesus Christ? He is the son of God, and is every way
like his father, being "the brightness of his father's glory, and the
express iramage of his person." He is material intelligence, with body,
parts and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones. He
can and does eat, drink, converse, reason, love, move, go, come, and
in short, perform all things even as the Father — possessing the same
power and attributes. And he, too, can travel space, and go from
world to world, and from system to system, precisely like the Father;
but cannot occupy two places at once.

What are angels? They are intelligences of the human species.
Many of them are offsprings of Adam and Eve. That is they are
men, who have, like Enoch or Elijah, been translated; or, like Jesus
Christ, been raised from the dead; consequently they possess a
material body of flesh and bones, can eat, drink, walk, converse,
reason, love, fight, wrestle, sing, or play on musical instruments.
They can go or come on foreign missions, in heaven, earth, or hell;
and they can travel space, and visit the different worlds, with all
the ease and alacrity with which God and Christ do the same,
being possessed of similar organizations, powers and attributes in
a degree.

What are spirits? They are material intelligences, possessing
body and parts in the likeness of the temporal body; but not
composed of flesh and bones, but of some substance less tangible to
our gross senses in our present life; but tangible to those in the
same element as themselves. In short they are men in embrio —
intelligences waiting to come into the natural world and take upon
them flesh and bones, that through birth, death, and the resurrection
they may also be perfected in the material organization. Such was
Jesus Christ, and such were we before we came into this world, and

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 257

such we will be again, in the intervening space between death and
the resurrection.

What are men? They are offspring of God, the Father, and
brothers of Jesus Christ. They were once intelligent spirits in
the presence of God, and were with him before the earth was formed.
They are now in disguise as it were, in order to pass through the
several changes, and the experience necessary to constitute them
perfect beings.

They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to
such a degree, as to be raised from the dead with a body like that
of Jesus Christ's, and to possess immortal flesh and bones, in which
they will eat, drink, converse, reason, love, walk, sing, play on
musical instruments, go on missions from planet to planet, or from
system to system: being Gods, or sons of God, endowed with the same
powers, attributes, and capacities that their heavenly Father and
Jesus Christ possess.

What are all these beings taken together, or summed up under
one head? They are one great family, all of the same species, all
related to each other, all bound together by kindred ties, interests
sympathies, and affections. In short they are all Gods; or rather,
men are the offspring or children of the Gods, and destined to advance
by degrees, and to make their. way by a progressive series of changes,
till they become like their Father in heaven, and like Jesus Christ
their elder brother.

Thus perfected, the whole family will possess the material uni-
verse, that is, the earth, and all other planets, and worlds, as
^*an inheritance incorruptiblt undefiled and that fadeth not away."
They will also continue to organize, people, redeem, and perfect
other systems which are now in the womb of Chaos, and thus ge on
increasing their several dominions, till the weakest child of God
which now exists upon the earth will possess more dominion, more
property, more subjects, and more power and glory than is possessed
by Jesus Christ or by his Father; while at the same time Jesus Christ
and his Father, will have their dominion, kingdoms, and subjtcts in-
creased in proportion.

Such are the riches, glories, blessings, honors, thrones, do-

258 THE '*mormon" doctrine op deity.

minions, principalities, and powers, held out by the system of
materialism.

Such the wealth, the dignity, the nobility, the titles and honors
to which * 'Mormons" aspire. Such the promises of him whose word
can never fail.

With these hopes and prospects before us, we say to the Christian
world, who hold to immateriality, that they are welcome to their God —
their life — their heaven, and their all.

They claim nothing but that which we throw away, and we claim
nothing but that which they throw away. Therefore, there is no
ground for quarrel, or contention between us.

CHAPTER VII.

DISCOURSES ON DEITY AND MAN.*

I.
PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG.f

To Know God is Eternal Life.

It is one of the first principles of the doctrine of salvation
to become acquainted with our Father and our God. The
Scriptures teach that this is eternal life, to ''know thee, the

* In these discourses it will be observed that in speaking of man
reference is made only to the pre-existence of his spirit, and his being
"begotten" a spirit by the heavenly Father; no reference is made to the
eternal intelligence of man, the *'ego'* that was not created or made,
"neither indeed can be," as set forth at pages 99 to 102. The breth-
ren in these discourses are not dealing with that phase of the sub-
ject; their purpose is met by referring merely to the pre-existence of
the spirits of men.

This remark also opens a way for a word which really should
have been spoken when explaining our views in relation to the im-
mortality of man, at pages 99 to 102. I mean the distinction that
exists between "generation" and "creation;" between a being "begot-
ten," and a thing "created," or "made." And here, somewhat to my
surprise, I may quote with approval one of the very eminent "Christ-
ian Fathers." "Let it be repeated," he remarks, "that a created

t This discourse was delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City,
February 8, 1857. Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, pp. 215 etlseq.

260 THE "mormon" doctrine op DEITy.

only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent;" this is
as much as to say that no man can enjoy or be prepared for
eternal life without that knowledge.

You hear a great deal of preaching upon this subject; and
when people repent of their sins, they will get together, and
pray and exhort each other, and try to get the spirit of revela-
tion, try to have God their Father revealed to them, that they
may know him and become acquainted with him.

There are some plain, simple facts that I wish to tell you*
and I have but one desire in this, which is, that you should have
understanding to receive them, to treasure them up in your
hearts, to contemplate upon these facts, for they are simple
facts, based upon natural principles; there is no mystery about
them when once understood.

I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you
are well acquainted with God our heavenly Father, or the great

thin^ is external to the nature of the being who creates; but a gen-
eration is the proper offspring of the nature" [of him who begets it].
And this Athanasius, the "Christian Father" referred to, puts forth
in explaining how the Son of God h consubstantial, i. e., of the same
substance, or essence, with the Father. And he remarks further, by
way of illustration: **It were madness to say that a house is co-es-
sential or con-substantial with the builder: or a ship with the ship-
wright; but it is proper to say, that every son is co-essential or con-
substantial with his father." (The foregoing extracts from Athana-
sious are quoted by Shedd, History Christian Doctrine, Vol. I, p.
322).

I call attention to this distinction that when in our literature we
say "God created the spirits of men," it is understood that they were
"begotten,* We mean "generation," not "creation." Intelligences,
which are eternal, uncreated, self -existing beings, are begotten
spirits, and these afterwards begotten men. When intelligences are
"begotten'' spirits they are of the nature of him who begets them —
sons of God, and con-substantial with their Father.

THE "mormon'' doctrine OP DEITY. 261

Eloheim. You are all well acquainted with him, for there is
not a soul of you but what has lived in his house and dwelt
with him year after year; and yet you are seeking to become
acquainted with him, when the fact is, you have merely for-
gotten what you did know. I told you a little last Sabbath
about forgetting things.

There is not a person here today but what is a son or a
daughter of that Being. In the spirit world their spirits were
first begotten and brought forth, and they lived there with
their parents for ages before they came here. This, perhaps,
is hard for many to believe, but it is the greatest nonsense in
the world not to believe it. If you do not believe it, cease to
call him **Father;" and when you pray, pray to some other
character.

It would be inconsistent in you to disbelieve what I think you
know, and then to go home and ask the Father to do so and so
for you. The Scriptures which we believe have taught us from
the bj'ginning to call him our Father, and we have been
taught to pray to him as our Father, in the name of our
eldest brother whom we call Jesus Christ, the Savior of the
world; and that Savior, while here on earth, was so explicit
on this point, that he taught his disciples to call no man on
earth father, for we have one which is in heaven. He is the
Savior, because it is his right to redeem the remainder of the
family pertaining to the flesh on this earth; if any of you do
not believe this, tell us how and what we should believe. If I
am not telling you the truth, please to tell me the truth on this
subject, and let me know more than I do know. If it is hard
for you to believe, if you wish to be Latter-day Saints, admit the
fact as I state it, and do not contend against it. Try to believe
it, because you will never become acquainted with our Father,
never enjoy the blessings of his Spirit, never be prepared to
enter into his presence, until you most assuredly believe it;

262 THE "mormon" DOCTEINB OJ* DfilTY.

therefore you had better try to believe this great mystery about
God.

I do not marvel that the world is clad in mystery, to them
he is an unknown God; they cannot tell where he dwells nor
how he lives, nor what kind of a being he is in appearance or
character. They want to become acquainted with his char-
acter and attributes, but they know nothing of them. This
is in consequence of the apostasy that is now in the world.
They have departed from the knowledge of God, transgressed
his laws, changed his ordinances, and broken the everlasting
CGvenant, so that the whole earth is defiled under the inhab-
itants thereof. Consequently it is no mystery to us that the
world knoweth not God, but it would be a mystery to me, with
what I now know, to say that we cannot know anything of him.
We are his children.

To bring the truth of this matter close before you, I will
instance your fathers who made the first permanent settlement
in New England. There are a good many in this congregation
whose fathers landed upon Plymouth Rock in the year 1620.
Those fathers began to spread abroad; they had children,
those children had children, and their children had children,
and here are we their children. I am one of them, and many
of this congregation belong to that class. Now ask yourselves
this simple question upon natural principles, has the species
altered? Were not the people who landed at Plymouth Rock
the same species with us? Were they not organized as we
are? Were not their countenances similar to ours? Did they
not converse, have knowledge, read books? Were there not
mechanics among them, and did they not understand agri-
culture, etc., as we do? Yes, every person admits this.

Now follow our fathers further back and take those who
first came to the island of Great Britain, were they the same
species of beings as those who came to America? Yes, all

THE *'MOftMON** DOCT&iKE OJ* DElTY. 263

Itcknowledge this; this is upon natural principles. Thus you
may continue and trace the human family back to Adam and
Eve, and ask, ''are we of the same species with Adam and
Eve?" Yes, every person acknowledges this; this comes
within the scope of our understanding.

But when we arrive at that point, a vail is dropt, and our
knowledge is cut off. Were it not so, you could trace back
your history to the Father of our spirits in the eternal world.
He is a being of the same species as ourselves: he lives as we
do, except the difference that we are earthly, and he is
heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same
species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage
that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is con-
siderable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one
moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to con-
sider him our God, or whether his Father, or his Grandfather,
for in either case we are of one species — of one family — and
Jesus Christ is also of our species.

You may hear the divines of the* day extol the character
of the Savior, undertake to exhibit his true character before
the people, and give an account of his origin.

Now to the facts in the case; all the difference between
Jesus Christ and any other man that ever lived on the earth,
from the days of Adam until now, is simply this, the Father,
after he had once been in the flesh, and lived as we live,
obtained his exaltation, attained to thrones, gained the ascend-
ancy over principalities and powers, and had the knowledge and
power to create — to bring forth and organize the elements
upon natural principles. This he did after his ascension, or
his glory, or his eternity, and was actually classed with the
Gods, with the beings who create, with those who have kept
the celestial law while in the flesh, and again obtained their
bodies. Then he was prepared to commence the work of

264 THE **mormon" doctrine op deity.

creation, as the Scriptures teach. It is all here in the Bible; I
am not telling you a word but what is contained in that book.

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually
begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with
him. Then he commenced the work of creating earthly
tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh
himself, by partaking of the coarse material that was organized
and composed this earth, until his system was charged with
it, consequently the tabernacles of his children were organized
from the coarse materials of this earth.

When the time came that his first-bom, the Savior, should
come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came
himself and favored that spirit with a tabernacle instead of
letting any other man do it. The Savior was begotten by the
Father of his spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of
our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between
Jesus Christ and you and me. And the difference there is
between our Father and us consists in that he has gained his
exaltation, and has obfained eternal lives. The principle of
eternal lives is an eternal existence, eternal duration, eternal
exaltation. Endless are his kin&:doms, endless h's thrones
and his dominions, and endless are His posterity; they never
will cease to multiply from this time henceforth and forever.

To you who are prepared to enter into the presence of
the Father and the Son, what I am now telling will eventually
be no more strange than are the feelings of a person who
returns to his father's house, brethren, and sisters, and enjoys
the society of his old associates, after an absence of several
years upon some distant island. Upon returning he would
be happy to see his father, his relatives and friends. So also
if we keep the celestial law when our spirits go to God who
gave them, we shall find that we are acquainted there and
distinctly realize that we know all about that world.

THE ''mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 265

Tell me that yon do not know anything about God! I will
tell you one thing, it would better become you to lay your
hands upon your mouths and them in the dust, and cry, ''un-
clean, unclean."

Whether you receive these things or not, I tell you them
in simplicity. I lay them before you like a child, because they
are perfectly simple. If you see and understand these things,
it will be by the Spirit of God; you will receive them by no
other spirit. No matter whether they are told to you like the
thunderings of the Almighty, or by simple conversation; if you
enjoy the Spirit of the Lord, it will tell you whether they are
right or not.

I am acquainted with my Father. I am as confident that
I understand in part, see in part, and know and am acquainted
with him in part, as I am that I was acquainted with my earthly
father who died in Quincy, Illinois, after we were driven from
Missouri. My recollection is better with regard to my earthly
father than it is in regard to my heavenly Father; but as to
knowing of what species he is, and how he is organized, and
with regard to his existence, I understand it in part as well as
I understand the organization and existence of my earthly
father. That is my opinion about it, and my opinion to me is
just as good as yours is to you; and if you are of the same
opinion you will be satisfied as I am.

I know my heavenly Father and Jesus Christ whom he has
sent, and this is eternal life. And if we will do as we have
been told this morning, if you will enter into the spirit of your
calling, into the principle of securing to yourselves eternal
lives, eternal existence, eternal exaltation, it will be well
with you.

17

266 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

11.

ELDER ORSON PRATT.*

Salvation Tangible — Personality and Character of God — Jesiig
our Elder Brother — Transformation oj the Earth — Its
tinal Destiny,

As a people the Latter-day Saints have passed through
many scenes trying and afflicting to their natures, and they have
endured them because of the anxiety of their hearts to obtain sal-
vation. People who are sincere will manifest their sincerity in
undergoing great tribulation, if necessary, for the sake of being
saved. This mortal life is of small consideration, compared
with eternal salvation in the kingdom of the Father. There is
nothing pertaining to the things of this present life that is
worthy of being named, in contrast with the riches of eternal
life. Jesus, in speaking upon this subject when he was on the
earth, asks this question: *'For what is man profited, if he
gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a
man give in exchange for his soul?" There is nothing so pre-
cious, nothing of so'great importance, as that of securing in this
life, the salvation of our souls in the world to come. Far better
is it if we can gain salvation by passing through various scenes
of affliction and persecution in this world, than to give way to
its pleasures and vanities, which can only be enjoyed for a sea-

* This discourse was delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City,
Nov. 12, 1876

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 267

son, and afterwards lose that eternal reward which God has in
store for the righteous.

It is true we look upon our future reward in quite a differ-
ent light from the religious world generally. We look for some-
thing tangible, something we can form some degree of rational
conception of, having a resemblance in some measure to the
present life. But how very imaginary are the ideas of the re-
ligious world! J do not now refer to the heathen world, but to
the enlightened Christian nations, the two hundred million of
Christians now existing on the earth. If you ask these people
about the future state of man, some will give you one idea and
some another, all more or less, perhaps, differing from each
other, but in the main they all agree, namely, that it is a state
entirely spiritual, that is, unconnected with anything tangible
like this present life, an existence which cannot be conceived of
by mortals.

You may think I am misrepresenting our Christian friends.
I will therefore say that for many years now I have been en-
gaged, more or less, in the study of religion, and have there-
fore read quite extensively the ideas of the religious world. I
have not accepted the ideas of a few individuals belonging to
the various sects, but I have appealed to their standard writ-
ings, their articles of faith, which are adopted by the various
religious bodies and known as their creeds. For instance, in
the articles of faith of a great many of the religious sects, an
idea like this is set forth — that there is a Being who is entirely
spiritual, called God, and that Being is described as consisting
of three persons, and these three persons are without body,
without parts, without passions. Such is the God that is wor-
shiped by the Methodists — a people whom I highly respect, and
whose meetings I attended in my early youtn more than those
of any other religious denomination. The three persons that
compose this one God are the Father, the Son, and the Holy

268 THE

Ghost, all of whom are said to be without bodies or passions;
and in connection with this, one of the cardinal doctrines of
their faith, they tell us that one of this holy Trinity, namely
Jesus, was crucified, dead and buried, and that on the third day
he arose again from the dead and ascended into heaven.

When I was a boy, attending the Methodist meetings, as many
now do who are of maturer years, I accepted sincerity for truth.
But when I grew to manhood my attention was called to this article
of faith; I tried in all earnestness to comprehend it, but could
not and cannot to this day. It is one of those incomprehensible
things which cannot be grasped by the human mind. You, my
hearers, try now with me for a few moments to comprehend, if
you can, a being consisting of three persons, and these three
persons without any body, parts or passions. I had been taught,
when studying the exact sciences, that everything that existed
was composed of parts, that there could not exist anything as
a whole unless it existed as parts. I could not, therefore, un-
derstand how it was that one of these three persons could be
crucified if he had no body; how it was possible, and be consist-
ent with reason, for him to lay down his body — something he
never possessed — and arise again from the tomb, taking up that
same body. This is indeed a mystery.

Now it so happens that the Scriptures do not teach any-
thing so absurd, so irreconcilable and so contrary to our senses.
This is a man-made doctrine, the creation of uninspired men.
The Methodists did not originate this doctrine — it existed and
was widely believed in before the days of the good man, John
Wesley.

The Latter-day Saints believe that there is a true and living
God, that this true and living God consists of three separate,
distinct persons, which have bodies, parts and passions, which
belief is in direct opposition to this man-made doctrine. We
believe that God, the Eternal Father, who reigns in yonder

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 269

heavens, is a distinct personage from Jesus Christ, as much so
as an earthly father is distinct in his existence from his son.
That is something I can comprehend, which I conceive to be the
doctrine of revelation. We read about Jesus having been seen
after he arose from the dead. Stephen the Martyr, just before
he was stoned to death, testified to the Jewish people that
were standing before him at the time, saying, "Behold, I see the
heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand
of God." Here, then, the Father and Jesus, two distinct per-
sonages, were seen, and both had bodies. We find numerous
other authorities bearing out this same idea. I do not intend
to dwell upon this subject, because the greater portion of this
congregation understand the scriptural view of this subject;
hence it is not necessary to speak lengthily on it. We may,
however, say a few things with regard to the passions of these
personages.

It is declared, as part of the belief of the Methodists, that
God is without passions. Love is one of the great passions of
God. Love is everywhere declared a passion, one of the noblest
passions of the human heart. This principle of love is one of
the attributes of God. "God is love," says the Apostle John,
"and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
If, then, this is one of the great attributes of Jehovah, if he is
filled with love'and compassion towards the children of men, if
his son Jesus Christ, so loved the world that he gave his life to
redeem mankind from the effects of the fall, then, certainly,
God the Eternal Father must be in possession of this passion.
Again, he possesses the attribute of justice, which is sometimes
called anger, but the real name of this attribute is jastice.
"He executeth justice," says the Psalmist; also, "Justice and
judgment are the habitation of thy throne." Justice is one of
the noble characteristics of our heavenly Father; hence another
of his passions [attributes].

270 THE **mormon" doctrine op deity.

We have it recorded too in this sacred Bible, that God was
seen by ancient men of God. Jacob testifies as follows: "For
I have seen God face to face." I know that there are other
passages of Scripture, which would seem to militate against this
declaration. For instance there is one passage which reads*
"No man hath seen God at any time." This is in direct contra-
diction to the testimony of Jacob. The way I reconcile this is
that no natural man can see the face of God the Father and
live, it would overpower him; but one quickened by the Spirit,
as old father Jacob was, could look upon God and converse with
him face to face, a=; he says he did, he must have seen a person-
age, a being, in his general outlines like unto himself; man, as
Moses informs us, having been created in the image of Qod.

We might refer to many other passages of Scripture, bear-
ing on this subject. The Prophet Isaiah saw God; he saw not
only the Lord, but a great congregation in connection with
him, so that his train filled the Temple. He is always repre-
sented by those who have seen him as a personage in the form
of man.

Having cited a very few evidences, let us inquire into the
character and being of God, the Eternal Father. We are the
offspring of the Lord, but the rest of animated nature is not;
we are just as much tha sons and daughters of God as the chil-
dren in this congregation are the sons and daughters of their
parents. We are begotten by him. When? Before we were
born in the flesh; this limited state of existence is not our ori-
gin, it is merely the origin of the tabernacle in which we dwell.
The mind we are possessed of, the being that is capable of
thinking and reflecting, that is capable of acting according to
the motives presented to it, that being which is immortal,
which dwells within us, which is capable of reasoning from
cause to effect, and which can comprehend, in some measure,
the laws of its Creator, as well as trace them out as exhibited

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 27i

in universal nature, that being, which we call the Mind, existed
before the tabernacle.

But says one, "that does not look reasonable." Why not?
Do you not believe that the spirit will endure forever? 0, yes.
You may ask, what becomes of the spirit, separated from the
body of flesh and bones, when this body lies in the grave? Has
it life and intelligence and power to think and reflect? Let us
hear what was said by those who sat under the altar, who were .
slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they
held, as seen and heard by John while on Patmos: "And they
cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, Lord, holy and
true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that
dwell on the earth?'' The Lord tells them that they should
"rest yet for a little season." These faithful servants of God
are anxiously awaiting the time when the Lord will avenge their
blood. Why? Because that will be the time when their bodies
will be redeemed, they look forward with great anxiety to the
time when they shall be again identified with the fleshly
tabernacle with which they were known and distinguished while
on the earth — hence this prayer.

Here we find another and further existence for the spirits
of men who exist in heaven, who are capable of thinking, of
using language, of understanding the future, and of anticipat-
ing that which was to come. Now, if they could exist after
they leave this tabernacle, while the tabernacle lies mouldering
in the dust, why not exist before the tabernacle had any exist-
ence? Was it not just as easy for an existence to be given to
spiritual personages before they took possession of bodies as it
is for them to exist after the body decays? Yes, and these are
our views, founded upon new revelation; not the views of unin-
spired men, but founded upon direct revelation from God.

Where did we exist before we came here? With God.
Where does he exist? In the place John denominated heaven.

272 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

What do we understand heaven to be? Not the place described
by our Christian friends, beyond the bounds of time and space,
for there is no such place, there never was, nor ever will be; but
I mean a tangible world, a heaven that is perfect, a heaven
with materials that have been organized and put together, sanc-
tified and glorifieJ as the residence and world where God re-
sides. Bom there? Yes, we were born there. Even our great
Redeemer whose death and sufferings we are this afternoon cele-
brating, was born up in yonder world before he was born of the
Virgin Mary. Have you not read, in the New Testament, that
Jesus Christ was the first-born of every creature? From this
reading it would seem that he was the oldest of the whole
human family, that is, so far as his birth in the spirit world is
concerned. How long ago since that birth took place is not
revealed; it might have been unnumbered millions of years for
aught we know. But we do know that he was bom and was
the oldest of the family of spirits. Have you not also read in
the New Testament that he is called our elder brother? Does
this refer to the birth of the body of flesh and bones? By no
means, for there were hundreds of millions who were bom upon
oar earth before the body of flesh and bones was born whom we
call Jesus. How is it, then, that he is our elder brother? We
must go back to the previous birth, before the foundation of
this earth; we have to go back to past ages, to the period when
he was begotten of the Father among the great family of spirits.
He became, by his birthright, the great Creator. God, through
him, created not only this little world, this speck of creation,
but by him the worlds were made and created. How many we
know not, for it has not been revealed. Suffice it to say, a
great many worlds were created by him. Why by him? Because
he had the birth right, he being the oldest of his father's
family, and this birthright entitles him, not only to create
worlds, but to become the Redeemer of those worlds, not only

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 273

the Redeemer of the inhabitants of this our earth, but of all the
others whom he created by the will and power of his Father.

But says one, "By that expression one would infer that
other worlds had fallen as well as our own, having doubtless
been placed in a state of temptation, and if so it would be fair
to presume that there was a Garden of Eden to each of these
worlds, containing all kinds of fruit, among which was the Tree
of Knowledge of good and evil, and that they became fallen pre-
cisely in the same manner as ours did, and consequently they
would need a Redeemer; and, therefore, the people of these
worlds would be redeemed and saved according to their dili-
gence and faithfulness in keeping the commandments of God?''
Have you not read in the first chapter of Genesis of two persons
appearing on this earth before man was made, when one who
was God, said to the other, ''Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness?" Does not that bespeak a pre-existence of
another personage besides the Almighty? And have you not
read too in the same chapter that "God created man in his own
image; male and female created he them?" When? It is said
to have been on the sixth period, or, according to King James'
translation, "on the sixth day." Do you mean to say we were
all in existence on the sixth day? Yes. But on the seventh
day, we are told in the following chapter, "there was not a man
to till the ground." Is it not very singular that all should have
an existence on the sixth day, and on the following day there
was not a man in existence to till the ground? Why not? Be-
cause man was not yet placed in this temporal creation, but he
had an existence then in heaven, where we were begotten. You
and I were present when this world was created and made — you
and I then understood the nature of its creation, and I have no
doubt that we rejoiced and sang about it. Indeed, the Lord
put a very curious question to the Patriarch Job, apropos of
this. He said to him, "Where wast thou when I laid the

274 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

foundation of the earth? Where wast thou when the morning
stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

Supposing Job to be living now, and this same question put
to him, and supposing, too, that, instead of answering it him-
self, he were to seek ta the learned Christian world for enlight-
enment on the subject, what do you think would be the nature
of the answer he would receive? It would be, in effect, "Why
Job, when the Lord laid the foundation of the earth, you had
no existence, for you were not born." Why did not Job so an-
swer the Lord? It was because he understood something about
man's previous estate. He was wise in niaking no reply to the
Lord, for doubtless he felt himself unable to do so. But we
find that Moses understood the subject, for at the time the
children of Israel transgressed he and his brother Aaron fell
upon their faces before the Lord, and Moses pleading with
great power and faith in behalf of the children of Israel, used
these words, "0 God, the God of the spirits of all flesh," etc.
He understood that God was the Father of our spirits, and he
addiessed hitn as such. I think too that the apostles in ancient
days must have had an idea of the pre-existence of man, judg-
ing from a certain question which they put to the Savior. It is
said that "as Jesu3 passed by, he saw a man which was blind from
his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying. Master, who did
sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Let us now consider this question in connection with pres-
ent modern ideas, and we shall at once perceive how utterly
foolish it will appear. To state the question fairly in other
words we might say, Master, was this man born blind because
he had sinned? The very nature of this question would indicate
to those even who do not believe in the principle, that this blind
man had an existence before he was born into this world, and
that he was capable, too, of committing sin. To show yet more
clearly that the principle of man's pre-existence is founded on

■ THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 275

Bibical authority, I will quote jou part of the Savior's prayer to
the Father, just prior to his crucifixion — **And now, Father
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had
with thee before the world was." Here we find Jesus actu-
ally referring to the time he dwelt with his Father before he
took upon himself a body of flesh and bones. He also says,
**For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the
will of him that sent me." He came down from the presence
and abode of his Father. On another occasion while addressing
the Jews, he says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abra-
ham was, I am." He was, in fine, the ^rs^-born of every crea-
ture, and consequently the eldest of our Father's family.

If, therefore, it be now admitted that our Elder Brother
had a i)revious existence with the Father, why should it be
thought unreasonable that the rest of the family should have a
pre-existence as well as the First Born? He was born accord-
ing to man in the flesh, and why not his younger brethren have
a similar birth with him in the spirit?

But now this carries us back still further, and invites us
to ascertain a little in relation to his Father. A great many have
supposed that God the Eternal Father, whom we worship in con-
nection with his Son, Jesus Christ, was always a self-existing,
eternal being from all eternity, that he had no beginning as a
personage. But in order to illustrate this, let us inquire, What
is our destiny? If we are now the sons and daughters of God,
what will be our future destiny? The Apostle Paul, in speak-
ing of man as a resurrected baing, says: "Who (Jesus) shall
change our vile body, that it might be fashioned like unto
his glorious body" (Phil. 3: 21), which harmonizes with what
John says, "it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but
we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him"
(I John 3: 2). Our bodies will be glorified in the same
manner as his body is; then we shall be truly in his image

276 THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY/

and likeness, for as he is immortal, having a body of flesh
and bone, so we will be immortal, possessing bodies of flesh
and bones. Will we ever become gods? Let me refer you
to the answer of the Savior to the Jews when accused of blas-
phemy because he called himself the Son of God. Says he, "Is
it not written in your law, I said. Ye are Gods? If ye called
them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scrip-
tures cannot be broken." This clearly proves to all Bible be-
lievers that in this world, in our imperfect state, being the chil-
dren of God, we are destined, if we keep his commandments, to
grow in intelligence until we finally become like God our Father.
Bv living according to every word which proceeds from the
mouth of God, we shall attain to his likeness, the same as our
children grow up and become like their parents; and, as chil-
dren through diligence attain to the wisdom and knowledge of
their parents, so may we attain to the knowledge of our Heav-
enly parents' and if they be obedient to this cammandment they
will not only be called the sons of God, but be gods.

In the first verse of the 14th chapter of Revelation, we
are told that John saw one hundred and forty-four thousand per-
sons standing with the Lamb upon Mount Zion, and they had a
peculiar name written in their foreheads — even their Father's
name, him whom we call, in our language, God. Then there will
be written upon the foreheads of these hundred and forty-four
thousand this insignia, the Father's name, and they will be gods;
and they will associate with him as do tho Father and his Only
Begotten, that is, his only son begotten in the flesh.

From this we can draw the conclusion that God our Eter-
nal Father, who is a spiritual being, has a body of flesh and
bones, the same as his children will have after the resurrection.

Says one, to carry it out still further, "if we become gods
and are glorified like unto him, our bodies fashioned like unto
his most glorious body, may not he have passed through a mor-

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 277

tal ordeal as we mortals are now doing? Why not? If it is
necesssary for us to gain experience through the things that are
presented before us in this life, why not those beings who are
already exalted and become gods, obtain their experience in the
same way? We would find, were we to carry this subject from
world to world, from our world to another, even to the endless
ages of eternity, that there never was a time but what there
was a Father and Son. In other words when you entertain that
which is endless, you exclude the idea of first being, a first
world; the moment you admit of a first, you limit the idea of
endless. * * *

Says one, *'this is incomprehensible." It may be so in some
respects. We can admit, though, that duration is endless, for
it is impossible for man to conceive of a limit to it. If dura-
tion is endless there can never be a first minute, a first hour, or
first period; endless duration in the past is made up of a contin-
uation of endless successive moments — it had no beginning.
Precisely so with regard to this endless succession of person-
ages; there never will be a time when fathers, and sons, and
worlds will not exist; neither was there ever a period through
all the past ages of duration, but what there was a world, and
a Father and Son, a redemption and exaltation to the fullness
and power of the Godhead. This is what Jesus prayed for, and
he did not limit his prayer to his Apostles, but he said, "Neither
pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on
me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou,
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in
us.

But, says one, "Does not that oneness mean one person?"
No; Jesus meant that those who believed in him through his
servants, might be able to come up to that fullness and glory
and power and exaltation which he inherited, even to the full-
ness of the celestial glory, to be crowned with God the Eternal

278 TLB "mormon" doctrine op deity.

Father, and with his Only Begotten, to be made equal, as it
were, with them, in power and dominion; agreeing with some
modem revelations God has given through the Prophet Joseph
Smith. He said all they that receive this Priesthood, that is,
those who receive the testimony of the servants of God, they
receive me; and whosoever receives my Father, receives my
Father's kingdom; whereupon all that my Father hath shall be
given to him. This is a glorious promise, to be joint heirs with
the Son of God in the inheritance of all things, even the fullness
and glory of the celestial world, their bodies eventually to be-
come glorified, spiritual bodies of flesh and bones, the same as
God the Father.

Before the earth was rolled into existence we were his sons
and daughters. Those of his children who prove themselves
during this probation worthy of exaltation in his presence, will
beget other children, and, precisely according to the same prin-
ciple, they too will become fathers of spirits, as he is the Father
of our spirits; and thus the works of God are one eternal round
— creation, glorification, and exaltation in the celestial king-
dom.

How many transformations this earth had before it-received
its present form of creation, I do not know. Geologists pre-
tend to say that this earth must have existed many millions of
years, and this assertion is generally made by men who do not
believe in God or the Bible, to disprove the history of the crea-
tion of the world, as given by the Prophet Moses. We will go
further than geologists dare to go, and say that the materials
of which the earth is composed are eternal, they will never
have an end.

What is meant by creation? Merely organization. In six
days we are told, God created this world, also every living thing
that then existed. Did he create any of these things out of
nothing? Did the materials then originate? No; there is no

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 279

Scripture to be found within the lids of the Old and New Testa-
ment, or Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, or in any
of the revelations of God, ancient or modern, that even inti-
mates such a thin^, for such was not the case; but go to the
creeds of men and you will find these things taught. I was
taught them in my youth; they were instilled into my young
mind, and, of course, I believed them. But as I matured in years
and thought, especially after I began to study the Hebrew lan-
guage, I learned that the material of which this earth was made
always did exist, and that it was only an organization or forma-
tion which took place, during the time spoken of by Moses.

How many transformations this earth passed through
before the one spoken of by Moses, I do not know, neither do I
particularly care. If it had gone through millions on millions
of transformations, it is nothing to us. We are willing, for the
sake of argument, to admit that the materials themselves are as
old as geologists dare to say they are; but then, that does not
destroy the idea of a God, that does not destroy the idea of a
great Creator, who, according to certain fixed and unalterable
laws, brought these materials, from time to time, into a certain
organization, and then by his power completed the worlds that
were thus made, by placing thereon intelligent and animated
beings, capable of. thinking and having an existence; and then
again, for various reasons, he destroys their earthly existence,
until finally he exalts them from their former condition, and
makes them celestial in their nature.

This is the destiny of this globe of ours; it will eventually
attain a state of organization that will no more be destroyed.
When? After God has fulfilled and accomplished his purposes,
after it has rested from wickedness one thousand years, during
which time Satan will not have power to tempt the children of
men, during which time the faithful will reign, as kings and
priests on the earth in their resurrected bodies, when, too, the

280 THE "mormon" doctrine of deity.

kingdom and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole
heaven will be in possession of the Saints of the Most High; not
only in the possession of those who are mortal Saints, but also
in the possession of those who are immortal Saints, appearing
as they will in their resurrected bodies, rising up as rulers, as
kings, and priests, upon the face of our globe.

A government administered by such men will be one that
can be depended on; in that respect it will be very different from
the political nations of mortal man. Then there will not be the
contention we now have, for all things pertaining to the gov-
ernment of God's kingdom will be conducted in order and on the
eternal principles of righteousness.

The Twelve Apostles who were called by Jesus, and who min-
istered in his name while they tarried on the earth, will sit upon
twelve thrones hereafter, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
There will be nothiog intangible or etherial about these thrones,
they will be just as real as any kingly throne of the earth. And
the Twelve Apostles will rule over the twelve tribes of Israel
for the space of a thousand years, having, as they will have,
their celestial bodies, and they will eat and drink at the table
of the Lord. He will be here also, he will be King of kings,
before whom all must bow, all must acknowledge his power —
and that will be for the space of a thousand years.

By and by, when the time comes for this earth to die — for
there has been a great deal of wickedness here — Satan will be
loosed to go forth agaia to deceive, for there will still be some
of the Saints mortal, who will be subject to temptation, and
even Satan will not only try to deceive the mortal Saints, but he
will gather together his armies around the camp of the Saints.

Then another time comes, when a great white throne will
appear, and he who sits thereon will be glorious in his majesty
and power, from before whose face the earth will Iflee away and
no place be found for it. Will he annihilate it? No, not a

THE "mormon" DOCTRIN'3 OP DEITY. 281

particle of the earth will be annihilated, not a particle
of the earth was ever originated, consequently not a par-
ticle of it will go out of existence, but it will flee away
to its original element in the same manner as the human body
would were it burned at the stake. The elements would be dif-
fused among original matter, so with the elements of our earth
when it undergoes its change. John was not satisfied with only
seeing the earth pass away, but he saw still further even until
he beheld a new heaven and a new earth, for, said he, the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was no
more sea. Again, he testifies further, saying, "And I, John,
saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God, out
of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And
I heard a great voice out of heaven saying. Behold the taber-
nacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they
shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be
their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eye»;
and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying,
neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are
passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said. Behold, I
make all things new."

This creation, when made new, will be inhabited by immor-
tal being'', who will no more be subject to death, conse-
quently there will be no more pain or sorrow, nothing to mar
their peace or to prevent them from entering into the fullness
of happiness and joy.

This, I say, is the destiny of this earth, and the Lord has
told us that the time is nigh at hand. .In other words, this is
the last dispensation and we are preparing for the work of the
Millennium. When the thousand years are passed, the earth
will be made new — it will then become a heaven, the habitation
of the Former and Latter-day Saints, as well as all they who

18

282 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

prove themselves faithful who will be born during the Millen-
nium. How long will they inhabit it? Forever.

When I was a boy, nineteen years old, I first saw Joseph
Smith; I attended a conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, on the 2nd of January, 1831. At that con-
ference the people desired him to inquire of the Lord for them
— they were anxious to know his mind and will. They were at
that time comparatively few in number, not being more than
two hundred. Joseph Smith sat down at a table, and received a
great revelation, which is now contained in this Book of Doc-
trine and Covenants. Part of it, in relation to a land of prom-
ise, reads as follows:

And I will give it unto you for the land of your inheritance, if
you seek it with all your hearts: and this shall be my covenant with
you, ye shall have it for the land of your inheritance, and for the in-
heritance of your children for ever, while the earth shall stand, and
j% shall possess it again in eternity, no more to pass away.*

When I sat and heard that revelation, — it was uttered by
the Prophet Joseph, and written by his scribe, — I thought
to myself, that is a very curious doctrine, for I had not then
learned that this earth was to become our future home and
heaven, and I did not think Joseph Smith knew it. But it seemed
80 curious to me to bring myself to believe that the Lord was
going to give us part of this earth, to possess it, and our chil-
dren after us, while time should last, and to retain it through
all eternity, never more to pass away. This was so different
from anything I had been taught — I was utterly confounded —
to think that my Father in heaven would come and live here on
this earth! But when I came to read the Bible on this subject
and found how numerous the passages were promising that the
Saints should inherit the earth forever, I was perfectly aston-

* Doc. and Gov. Sec. 38; 19-20.

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 283

ished that I had never thought of it before. "Blessed are the
meek," says the Savior, "for they shall inherit the earth."* The
meek have been driven into the dens and mountains of the
earth, having had to hide themselves up from their persMutors
while the wicked, the proud, and the haughty have inherited
the earth. Yet here is a promise that the meek shall inherit
this earth, which all of course would readily admit has never had
its fulfillment. Then again I was still more confirmed in the
truth of this doctrine, when finding other corroborative pas-
sages. David, for instance, in the 37th Psalm, says, "The
wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land,
and dwell thereon for ever." I go back to the Books of Moses
and there ascertain that the earth is promised to the Saints for
ever. I came to the Acts of the Apostles, wherein the martyr
Stephen, in answering the charge of blasphemy, tells of Abra-
ham, how he came to leave his own country, and how the Lord
had promised him a land for an inheritance, which "he would
give to him for a possession, and to his seed after him," and
yet he never possessed any of it, "no, not so much as to set his
foot on," and this same promise was confirmed to Isaac and
Jacob. And when I read in the Revelations of John about the
new song that he heard them sing in heaven about their com-
ing back to the earth (Rev. 5: 9, 10), I was fully confirmed that
the new revelation was from God. One portion of the song
which John heard the angels sing, was, "For thou wast slain,
and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred,
and tongue and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our
God kings and priests; and we shall reign on the earth."

How very plain it is when we once learn about our future
heaven. We do not have to pray, according to the Methodists,
for the Lord to take us to a land beyond time and space, the

= Matt. 5: 5.

284 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

Saints, secure abode. How inconsistent to look for a heaven
beyond space! The heaven of the Saints is something we can
look forward to in the confident hope of realizing our inherit-
ances and enjoying them forever, when the earth becomes sanc-
tified and made new. And there, as here, we will spread forth,
and multiply our children. How long? For eternity. What,
resurrected Saints have children? Yes, the same as our God,
who is the Father of our spirits; so you, if you are faithful to
the end, will become fathers to your sons and daughters, who
will be as innumerable as the sands upon the sea shore; they
will be your children, and you will be their heavenly fathers, the
same as our heavenly Father is Father to us, and they will be-
long to your kingdoms through all the vast ages of eternity,
the same as we will belong to our father's kingdom.

He that receiveth my father, says the Savior, receiveth my
Father's kingdom, wherefore all that my father hath shall be
given to him. It is a kind of joint stock inheritance, we are to
become joint heirs with Jesus Christ to all the inheritances and
to all the worlds that are made. We shall have the power of
locomotion; and like Jesus, after his resurrection, we shall be
able to mount up and pass from one world to another. We shall
not be confined to our native earth. There are many worlds in-
habited by people who are glorified, for heaven is not cjne
place, but many, heaven is not one world but many. "In my
Father's house are many mansions." In other words — In my
Father's house there are many worlds, which in their turn will
be made glorified heavens, the inheritance of the redeemed from
all the worlds, who, having been prepared through similar ex-
perience to our own, will inhabit them; and each one in its turn
will be exalted through the revelations and laws of the Most
High God, and they will continue to multiply their offspring
through all eternity, and new worlds will be made for their prog-
eny. Amen.

CHAPTER VIII.

"l KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVES."*

President Joseph F. Smith on the '^Mormon" Doctrine of Deity.

My beloved brethren and sisters, while listening to the sing-
ing of the last hymn, my mind reverted to a revelation con-
tained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and I feel im-
pressed to read a portion of it, and then make a few remarks
concerning it, if I am led to do so. This revelation was given
through the Prophet Joseph Smith, at Kirtland, in May,
1833:

Verily, thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that every soul
who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name,
and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my
face and know that I am.

You will remember that the hymn which was sung by the
choir begins thus:

I know that my Redeemer lives,
What comfort this sweet sentence gives!
He lives, he lives, who once was dead;
He lives, my ever-living Head.

It occurs to me that in the words I have just read from the

* This discourse was delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City,
March 16, 1902, and by the kind permission of President Smith I am
allowed to reproduce it here.

286 THE

revelation there is a key given to us, as the people of God, by
which we may know how to obtain the knowlege which is
spoken of by the poet in this hymn — "I know that my Redeemer
lives." The conditions are stated by which we may secure this
knowledge. Furthermore, every, soul who observeth these
conditions shall not only know that he is, but he shall know
also —

That I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into
the world;

And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father
and 1 are one.

This is not speaking of the greater light which is especially
bestowed upon those who are born again; for not every man
that cometh into the world is born again and entitled to receive
the greater light by the gift of the Holy Ghost. Perhaps it
may be well for me to make a few remarks in relation to this
distinction between the light of Christ that lighteth every man
that cometh into the world, and that light which comes after
repentance and baptism for the remission of sins.

It is by the power of God that all things are made that
have been made. It is by the power of Christ that all things
are governed and kept in place that are governed and kept
in place in the universe. It is the power which proceeds
from the presence of the Son of God throughout all the
works of his hands, that giveth light, energy, understand-
ing, knowledge, and a degree of intelligence to all the children
of men, strictly in accordance with the words in the Book
of Job, ''There is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of
the Almighty giveth them understanding." It is this inspir-
ation from God, proceeding throughout all his creations that
enlighteneth the children of men; and it is nothing more ner
less than the spirit of Christ, that enlighteneth the mind, that
quickeneth the understanding, and that prompteth the children

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 287

of men to do that which is good and to eschew that which is
evil; which quickens the conscience of man and gives him in-
telligence to judge between good and evil, light and darkness,
right and wrong. We are indebted to God for this intelligence
that we possess. It is by the spirit which lighteth every man
that cometh into the world that our minds are quickened and
our spirits enlightened with understanding and intelligence.
And all men are entitled to this. It is not reserved for the
obedient alone; but it is given unto all the children of men
that are born into the world.

Gift of the Holy Ghost.

But the gift of the Holy Ghost, which bears record of the
Father and the Son, which takes of the things of the Father
and shows them unto men, which testifies of Jesus Christ, and
of the ever-living God, the Father of Jesus Christ, and which
bears witness of the truth — this Spirit, this intelligence is not
given unto all men until they repent of their sins and come into
a state of worthiness before the Lord. Th^n they receive it
by the laying on of the hands of those who are authorized of
God to bestow His blessings upon the heads of the children of
men. The Spirit spoken of in that which I have read is that
Spirit which will not cease to strive with the children of men
until they are brought to the possession of the greater light
and intelligence. Though a man may commit all manner of
sin and blasphemy, if he has not received the testimony of the
Holy Ghost he may be forgiven by repenting of his sins, humb-
ling h?mself before the Lord, and obeying in sincerity the com-
mandments of God. As it is stated here, "Every soul who
f orsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name,,
and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall
see my face and know that I am." He shall be forgiven, and
receive of the greater light; he will enter into a solemn cov-

288 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

enant with God, into a compact with the Almighty, through
the Only Begotten Son, whereby he becomes a son of God, and
heir of God, and a joint heir with Jesus Christ. Then, if he
shall sin against the light and knowledge he has received, the
light that was within him shall become darkness, and oh, how
great will be that darkness! Then, and not till then, will this
Spirit of Christ that lighteth every man that cometh into the
world cease to strive with him, and he shall be left to his own
destruction.

This is in accordance with the doctrine of Christ as it is re-
vealed in the New Testament; it is in accordance with the
word of God as it has been revealed in the latter-day through
the Prophet Joseph Smith. God will not condemn any man to
utter destruction, neither shall any man be thrust down to hell
irredeemably, until he has been brought to the possession of
the greater light that comes through repentance and obedience
to the laws and commandments of God; but if, after he has
received light and knowledge, he shall sin against that light
and will not repent, then, indeed, lie becomes a lost soul, a son
of perdition!

The question is often asked. Is there any difference between
the Spirit of the Lord and the Holy Ghost? The terms are
frequently used synonymously. We often say the Spirit of
God when we mean the Holy Ghost; we likewise say the Holy
Ghost when we mean the Spirit of God. The Holy Ghost is a
personage in the Godhead, and is not that which lighteth
every man that comes into the world. It is the Spirit of God
which proceeds through Christ to the world, that enlightens
every man that comes into the world, and that strives with the
children of men, and will continue to strive with them, until it
brings them to a knowledge of the truth and the possession of
the greater light and testimony of the Holy Ghost. If, how-
aver^ he receive that greater light, and then sin against it, the

THE **M0RM0N" doctrine OP DEITY. . 289

Spirit of God will cease to strive with him, and the Holy Ghost
will wholly depart from him. Then will he persecute the truth;
then will he seek the' blood of the innocent; then will he not
scruple at the commission of any crime, except so far as he
may fear the penalties of the law, in consequence of the crime,
upon himself.

Jems the Father of this World,

I will read a little further:

And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the
Father and I are one. *

I do not apprehend that any intelligent person will con-
strue these words to mean that Jesus and his Father are one
person, bub merely that they are one in knowledge, in truth, in
wisdom, in understanding, and in purpose; just as the Lord
Jesus himself admonished his disciples to be one with him,
and to be in him, that he might be in them. It is in this sense
that I understand this language, and not as it is construed by
some people, that Christ and his Father are one person. I de-
clare to you that they are not one person, but that they are
two persons, two bodies, separate and apart, and as distinct as
are any father and son within the sound of my voice. Yet,
Jesus is the Father of this world, because it was by him that
the world was made. He says:

And the Father and I are one:

The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because
I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among
the sons of men.

I was in the world and received of my Father, and the works
of him were plainly manifest;

And John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory: and
the fulness of John's record is hereafter to be revealed:

290 THE "mormon" doctrine op deity.

And he bore record, saying, I saw his glory that ^he was in the
beginning before the world was;

Therefore in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word,
even the messenger of salvation.

The light and redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who
came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him
was the life of men and the light of men.

The worlds were made by him: men were make by him: all
things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

And I, John, [bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of
the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the
Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in tl^e flesh, and dwelt among
us.

And I, John, saw that he received not the fulness at first, but
received grace for grace;

And he received not of the fulness at first, Ijut continued from
grace to grace, until he received a fulness:

And thus he was called the Son of God, because He received not
of the fulness at the first.

Glorious Possibilities of Man.

What a glorious thought is inspired in the heart when we
read sentiments like this, that even Christ himself was not
perfect at first: he received not a fulness at first, but he re-
ceived grace for grace, and he continued to receive more and
more until he received a fulness. Is not this to be so with the
ehildren of men? Is any man perfect? Has any man received
a fulness at once? Have we reached a point wherein we may
receive the fulness of God, of his glory and his intelligence? No;
and yet if Jesus^ the Son of God, and the Father of the heavens
and the earth in which we dwell, received not a fulness at the
first, but increased in faith, knowledge, understanding and grace
until he received a fulness, is it not possible for all men that are
born of women to receive little by little, line upon line, pre-

THE "mormon" doctrine OF DEITY. 291

cept upon precept, until they shall receive a falness, as he has
received a fulness, and be exalted with him in the presence of
the Father?

The revelation continues:

And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and
the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat
upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying. This is my
beloved son.

This voice out of heaven came from God, the Father of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory
of the Father;

And he received all power both in heaven and on earth, and the
glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall re-
ceive the fulness of the record of John.

I give unto you these sayings that ye* may understand and
know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may
come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his
fulness.

For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his ful-
ness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say
unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the
Father: and am the first-born.

And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the
glory of the same, and are the church of the first-born.

Ye were also in the beginning with the Father, that which is
Spirit, even the Spirit of truth.

And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were,
and as they are to come;

And whatsoever is more or less than this, is the spirit of that
wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

The spirit of truth is of God. I am the spirit of truth, and John

292 THE **MORMON"- DOCTRINE OP DEITI.

bore record of me, saying — He receiveth a fulness of truth, yea,
even of all truth.

And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his com-
mandments.

He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light,
until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the
light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can it be.

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed
it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there is no ex-
istence.

Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is f'e condemnation of
man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest
unto them and they receive not the light.

And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under
condemnation.

For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and
element, inseparably connected, receiveth a fulness of joy:

And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

Man to Become Like Christ

In other words, the spirit without the body is nob perfect,
and the body without the spirit is dead. Man was ordained in
the beginning to become like Jesus Christ, to become conformed
unto his image. As Jesup was born of woman, lived and grew
to manhood, was put to death and raised from the dead to im-
mortality and eternal life, so it was decreed in the beginning
that man should be, and will be, through the atonement of
Jesus, in spite of himself, resurrected from the dead. Death
came upon us without the exercise of our agency; we had no
hand in bringing it originally upon ourselves; it came because
of the transgression of our first parents. Therefore, man, who
had no hand in bringing death upon himself, shall have no hand
in bringing again life unto himself; for as he dies in consequence

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 293

of the sin of Adam, so shall he live again, whether he will or
not, by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and the power of his
resurrection. Every man that dies shall live again, and shall
stand before the bar of God, to be judged according to his
works, whether they be good or evil. It is then that all will
have to give an account for their stewardship in this mortal
life. The word of God is spoken to the children of men. It has
been revealed from the heavens. It is extant in the world. It
is in force upon the people. Those that reject it will have to
answer for it before God, the judge of the quick and the dead;
while those that receive and obey the word of the Lord and
keep his commandments, as I have read, shall not only come to
a knowledge of the truth, but shall look upon the face of the
Redeemer and shall see and know him as he is. Furthermore,
they will acknowledge that it is through the atonement and
power of the Savior that they are brought again unto life im-
mortal, to enjoy eternal felicity in the celestial kingdom of
God, provided they have been obedient to his commandments.
The Lord continues:

The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the taber-
nacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God
shall destroy that temple.

The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and
truth.

Light and truth forsake that evil one.

Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning, and God
having redeemed man from the fall, men became again in their infant
state, innocent before God.

And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth,
through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the
tradition of their fathers.

The word of the Lord is truth. You ask, What is truth?
It is the truth that God lives. What more is truth? It is the

294 THE "mormon" doctrine of deity.

truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Redeemer of the
world; that he atoned for the sin of Adam, and that through
our repentance and obedience to him we shall receieve a for-
giveness of our own sins, and shall be cleansed therefrom, and
exalted again in the presence of God, from whence we came. It
is truth that God has revealed to the world that except a man
be bom again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. It is
eternal truth that except a man be born of the water and of the
Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. These are
the Almighty's truths that he has revealed to the children of
men, and upon these we will stand. We propose to bear our
testimony to these truths, and to declare these principles to the
children of men, as long as God will give us his Spirit, and we
are entrusted with this mission to declare Jesus Christ and him
crucified and risen from the dead, and Joseph Smith raised up
by the power of God to restore the fulness of the everlasting
Gospel and the authority of the Holy Priesthood to the earth in
the dispensation of the fulness of times. We bear this testi-
mony to the world, and we know that our testimony is true; for
we have received of that Spirit of truth which is of God, and of
which Jesus speaks here through the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Therefore, our testimony is in force upon the world. Espe-
cially is it in force upon those who have yielded obedience to the
message of salvation as it has been restored to the earth and
declared unto you.

Personal Testimony.

Now, my brethren and sisters, I know that my Redeemer
lives. I feel it in every fiber of my being. I am just as satis-
fied of it as I am of my own existence. I cannot feel more sure
of my own being than I do that my Redeemer lives, and that my
God lives, the Father of my Savior. I feel it in my soul; I am
converted to it in my whole being. I bear testimony to you

THE "mormon" doctrine OP DEITY. 295

that this is the doctrine of Christ, the Gospel of Jesus, which is
the power of God unto salvation. It is "Mormonism." But
there is much more that could be said in relation to these mat-
ters. "Mormonism" has been interpreted by one who was in-
spired to mean "more good." We have accepted the term
"Mormon." It having been applied to us by our enemies simply
because we believed in the Book of Mormon, and we are not
ashamed of it— we are not ashamed of "more good." We be-
lieve in every principle and precept of the Gospel, and in all the
law of God. We believe that every principle is essential. We
believe that we should do our duty to God and to our fellow-
men. We should do unto others as we would have them do to
us. We should observe the laws of chastity, honesty and up-
rightness, deal justly with our neighbors, and kindly and mer-
cifully with the erring. We should seek to do good at all
times and under all circumstances. The feeling should pre-
dominate in our hearts that we are here, not to do evil, but to
do good; not to increase error, but to diminish it and to in-
crease the knowledge of the truth; to make men happy, and to
spread happiness abroad in the world by persuading men to do
that which is right. There is no real happiness in wickedness.
There is no real enjoyment in sin and transgression. The only
source of real enjoyment and perfect happiness is m the ob-
servance of the laws of truth and righteousness.

The Lord bless you and help us all to live our religion and
to keep the commandments of God, that we may look upon
his face, and that we may see the Redeemer when he shall
come to the earth again; for he will come, and when he
does come again he will not come as the meek and
lowly Nazarene, without "where to lay his head," and without
respect and honor, but he will come as God out of heaven,
clothed with power, glory, justice, judgment and truth. He
will come with the hosts of heaven, and he will receive those

296 THE "mormon" doctrine of deity.

who have kept his commandments in the earth as the charc}i
prepared for the Bridegroom, while he will take vengeance upon
the ungodly.

This is not my doctr—** it is the declaration of the Bible,
of the ancinet prophets, and also of the modern prophets, who
have spoken by inspiration. I am but repeating their words,
and I tell you nothing new. God bless you and keep you in the
path of duty, and deliver us all from evil, and help us to be
steadfast and faithful to the covenants that we have made, and to
the cause of Zion and of redemption for the living and the dead,
is my prayer in the name of Jesus. Amen.

n"

#■

THE BORROWER WILL BE CHARGED
THE COST OF OVERDUE NOTIFICATION
IF THIS BOOK IS NOT RETURNED TO
THE LIBRARY ON OR BEFORE THE LAST
DATE STAMPED BELOW.

eoi.
MAY294j98f:S»